Kindly help me review rejection - Exception promise

[Alexandr]

Hello

I got rejection in all criteria.

Applied : 28 Jan
Rejected today (16th Feb)

I posted my evidence here

Kindly review my profile - Software Engineer

I am app developer having 4 years of contunious experience in product based companies. I am going to apply for Exceptional promise with MC, OC2 and OC3 Below are the documents I have prepared Personal statement (980 words) Mentioned about about my curiocity in digital technology, education, achievements as employee, planned occupation in the UK, region where I want to live in and why this region, contribution I will make in digital economy CV : Work experience and link of products on whic…

TN Feedback

The applicant has applied for Exceptional Promise with Mandatory Criteria (MC) & Optional Criteria (OC) 2 & 3. The applicant provided their CV and the required three recommendation letters as part of their application. Per guidelines, please note that the Exceptional Promise applicants are likely to be earlier in their career, usually with less than five years of experience. The applicant does not fall under these guidelines. Per guidelines, any activity the applicant is providing as evidence of recognition should have occurred within the past five years. One of the reference letters refers to the applicant’s work that occurred more than five years ago. Furthermore, per guidelines, reference letters provided by immediate colleagues are not sufficient. We identified one letter that does not fit the guidelines. For MC, the applicants are required to show recognition in digital technology. Certificates are not sufficient to meet this criterion. Furthermore, published material should be in professional or major trade publications or major media about the applicant related to the applicant’s work in the digital technology sector. The evidence provided does not convincingly meet the required level. MC is not rewarded.

For OC2, the applicants are required to demonstrate proof of recognition for work beyond their occupation that contributes to the sector’s advancement. The evidence here can include a GitHub profile demonstrating active participation in a collaborative project or a Stack Overflow profile showing the significant contribution to discussions around code. We are not convinced that the evidence meets the required level for OC2. Talks or conference speaking that have had a significant viewership. Conferences must be widely regarded as sector-leading events for the applicant’s field. Leading a workshop or running a session at a conference is not sufficient. The evidence here is not compelling to reward OC2. OC2 is not rewarded.

For OC3, applicants must demonstrate a ‘significant contribution’ to the sector. Per guidelines, the evidence here may include having led or played a key role in the growth of a product-led digital technology company. Self-statement documents should be backed with further evidence. OC3 is not rewarded.

In summary, we assessed all the evidence provided. The applicant does not meet any criteria. Therefore, this application is not endorsed.

@alexnk @Francisca_Chiedu @Victrr @May Please share your views

@alex_james I know you managed to convince them to pass 2 criteria when you appealed. Can you help me please?

Thanks

[Alexandr]

@Alexandr

Per guidelines, please note that the Exceptional Promise applicants are likely to be earlier in their career, usually with less than five years of experience. The applicant does not fall under these guidelines. Per guidelines, any activity the applicant is providing as evidence of recognition should have occurred within the past five years. One of the reference letters refers to the applicant’s work that occurred more than five years ago.

I agree with this point but he also mentioned about my work in less than 5 years ago which they did not consider. He mentioned about my open source work, my personal app development and some framework I developed within last 5 years

@Alexandr

Furthermore, per guidelines, reference letters provided by immediate colleagues are not sufficient. We identified one letter that does not fit the guidelines.

none of my LOR were from immediate colleague. I submited 2 from CEO and 1 from CTO

@Alexandr

For MC, the applicants are required to show recognition in digital technology. Certificates are not sufficient to meet this criterion. Furthermore, published material should be in professional or major trade publications or major media about the applicant related to the applicant’s work in the digital technology sector. The evidence provided does not convincingly meet the required level. MC is not rewarded.

1.1 - Employment offer later with salary info and comparison from Glassdoor and official UK website

1.2 - Public Talk (link of talk, picture of my speaking , topic and date) ( 1/2 Talks)

1.1 and 1.2 are combined into 1 evidence

2 - Publication
I mentioned various blogs and articles I have published (Title, Date, and Link) and personal App Store (link and screenshot)

3 For recognition, I mentioned about the apps which I developed (added screenshot of app , link , downloads, user reviews). To prove I worked for these apps I added screenshot of GitHub commit and referes in LOR also mentioned contributions in these apps

4 Github profile link and screenshot, profile states, contriution in open source repos, sources and forked repos, pull request and merge ( I have around 90 repos(41 are public)

@Alexandr

For OC2, the applicants are required to demonstrate proof of recognition for work beyond their occupation that contributes to the sector’s advancement. The evidence here can include a GitHub profile demonstrating active participation in a collaborative project or a Stack Overflow profile showing the significant contribution to discussions around code. We are not convinced that the evidence meets the required level for OC2. Talks or conference speaking that have had a significant viewership. Conferences must be widely regarded as sector-leading events for the applicant’s field. Leading a workshop or running a session at a conference is not sufficient. The evidence here is not compelling to reward OC2. OC2 is not rewarded.

1 - Volunteering in digital technology field

Here I showed evidence of my technical contribution in organisations. I volunteered in 3 organisations with different task. I added screenshot of my work showing my name on their website and certification from organisation about contribution I did for them

2 - Communities

I am member of various communities and platform where I gave answers, participated in activities, joining discord and meet up groups and attending different tech events. I added screenshots, links and ,my profile page link. I also shared discussion on a blockchain topic in discord server.

3 Open Source & Tech Events

For open source same as 4th evidence in MC

Tech Events

(2/2) talk with link, number of attendees, screenshot of me speaking, recording link and event URL

Participation in different hackathons- I participated in 5 hackathons and submitted 4 projects.

@Alexandr

For OC3, applicants must demonstrate a ‘significant contribution’ to the sector. Per guidelines, the evidence here may include having led or played a key role in the growth of a product-led digital technology company. Self-statement documents should be backed with further evidence. OC3 is not rewarded.

1- offer letter from current emoloyer

2 - Detailed document of product of past employer in which I was key engineer ( About project, user reviews, downloads, challenges I faced and overcame, impact of my contribution in making product successful, code commit to prove my contribution and tech stack )

3 - Detailed document of another product of my current employer ( About project, user reviews, downloads, challenges I faced and overcame, impact of my contribution in making product successful, code commit to prove my contribution and tech stack )

[Alexandr]

@alexnk @Francisca_Chiedu @Victrr @May @alex_james @ask4jubad

I realised that in one of my reference letter he has mentioned about my work which is more than 5 years but could be lead to rejection of all criterias?

[Alexandr]

cc: @Maya @somdipdey @Yusuf_Adebanjo and others who I could not cc.

[Chaitanya_Bapat]

@Alexandr

mentioned various blogs and articles I have published

where have you published it? how many views? is published material in professional or major trade publications or major media ?

[Chaitanya_Bapat]

@Alexandr

Github profile link and screenshot, profile states, contriution in open source repos, sources and forked repos, pull request and merge ( I have around 90 repos(41 are public)

does your profile show “active participation in collaborative project”? i.e. project has non-trivial number [or high number of stars] i.e. lot of people use it & have you made contributions in last 5 years to it. if all of this is yes then this evidence looks alright.

[Chaitanya_Bapat]

@Alexandr

talk with link, number of attendees, screenshot of me speaking, recording link and event URL

where did you talk? how many people attend [It should be 100+ last time i checked].

[Alexandr]

Thanks @Chaitanya_Bapat for the feedback

I have published them on https://dev.to/ and https://hashnode.com/
I am also member of Apple Developer Program where I have published around 25 apps on App store. I added all these 3 publication in one doc

About view I shared dashboard screenshot - Total Vies < 500 ( I know it’s not big number but hopping to work for promise)

[ask4jubad]

Hello @Alexandr.

Sorry to hear about your rejection.

The good thing is that you can ask for a review.

It does seem that there is a disconnect in how you are perceived regarding the strength of your contributions to the Digital Technology.

Personally, I don’t have experience with submitting a review but based on all the evidences that you have mentioned (assuming that the numbers and outlets are considered major trade publications), then you can make a case. Remember that you cannot add new evidences, so, you must only use this review opportunity to point the reviewer to those sections of your support documents where you think you nailed the criteria to which for you had submitted against.

For instance, in your OC2, articles in medium/linkedIn etc. may not be considered industry standard as stipulated in the guide. So, highlight your contribution on Knowledge forums more.

Perhaps you may have come across as an Exceptional Leader but instead applied as Exceptional Promise.

[Alexandr]

yes I contributed in some repos which has more than 23K stars and 50K forks

[Alexandr]

I talked on two different platforms
https://logytalks.com/ and https://www.codementor.io/
Both events has more than 100 attendees. I used one for MC and other for OC2
Added link, picture of me speaking, number of attendees and date of event

[Alexandr]

Thanks @ask4jubad

I agree I cannot add new evidences in review. I should go for appeal only if it will turn out positive. But first I need to understand some points they mentioned. For example they stated

1. One of the reference letters refers to the applicant’s work that occurred more than five years ago.

This is true so what I am afraid is that as they found this “not fit” they might not have checked considered other evidence as valid.

2. reference letters provided by immediate colleagues are not sufficient. We identified one letter that does not fit the guidelines.

I am not sure on which bases they said they are immediate colleagues. I submited two from CEO and 1 from CTO. How do I tell them that they are not. However one of them who is CEO of another company, we used to work together many years ago.

3. We are not convinced that the evidence meets the required level for OC2. Talks or conference speaking that have had a significant viewership. Conferences must be widely regarded as sector-leading events for the applicant’s field.

How do I convince them about my contribution on github and talks. Also these are not the only evidences for OC2. I worked fom 3 different non profit organisations and participated in varios Hackthons which they did not consider.

I do not have more than 5 years of experience in product lid company so I thought to apply for promise. I have seen many people who applied for promise but endorsed as talent. Honestly I am not expecting telent endorsement but unfortunetly even promise was not awared …

[ask4jubad]

@Alexandr, I would try to suggest some things (take them not literally but as a guide).

To answer this, I would recall their concern and then state that the recommender only mentioned this to highlight what they know about you. Then call the assessor’s attention to other achievements mentioned by the same recommender (I am assuming that it’s not only the 5-year old work that they talked about) and how it shows that you have always brought value to the team.

Answering this should be more straightforward. You simply state that they are not immediate colleagues. Add also that the only requirements for the LORs are the following according to the Tech Nation guideline:

Each person who writes a letter for you must:

• Be a senior member of their organisation
• Know your work

Each letter must:

• Be about your Global Talent application - you cannot use a letter that was written for another reason
• Explain how the author knows the applicant; and
• Knows the applicant’s achievements in the relevant field; and
• How the author considers the applicant shows exceptional talent or promise; and
• the contribution the applicant would make to the UK digital economy.

And there is no further requirement about their immediacy. It would help if your recommenders are recognized Industry experts that can easily be googled. Infact, I would do a checklist against the requirements and put tickmarks or comments accordingly. Something like this (I can’t give more unfortunately):

For this, you just have to re-emphasize that your articles and talks advance the field e.g. showing readership (dev.to for instance welcomes 1m+ developers). Codementor is also one of the biggest names in app dev. I would recommend that you craft a story to stress that you voluntarily accepted to speak because you felt the need to inspire …

I hope I have helped further.

[Alexandr]

Thanks @ask4jubad for shading light on this

So do you think the concern they raised “any activity the applicant is providing as evidence of recognition should have occurred within the past five years.” in LOR can be justified by comparing the guideline? I mean as per the guideline

• Explain how the author knows the applicant;
• Knows the applicant’s achievements in the relevant field;

yes it’s true that they have not mentioned anything about referee cannot mention achievement applicant did which is more than 5 years ago. It’s true for activity applicant does to provide other evidence not LOR
Still if other experts like @alexnk @Francisca_Chiedu @Victrr @May @alex_james @Maya @somdipdey @Yusuf_Adebanjo @Chaitanya_Bapat can share their view it would be really helpful

[alexnk]

Hi @Alexandr. I am sorry to hear that your application was rejected, but I feel that it is not the end of it. It is just the beginning.

First of all, I agree with @ask4jubad 's comments. And here are my comments below:

• A game changer here could possibly be that you work in the Digital Technology field for more than or less than 5 years. If you think you only qualify for less than 5 years, you need to reveal and point out about that. You may need to point out that some companies you work with are not Digital Tech. If you can make a case to be less than 5 years, you will only need to qualify 1 piece of evidence per criterion, otherwise, you will not qualify for the Talent route.
• I see that you have a lot of doubt and confidence in that judgment, which is great. I feel that you should be able to correct the assessor’s mistake. What you need to do is to find the paragraph or link you mentioned in the evidence, then point them to see those paragraphs, and add some small explanation.
  – MC: If you are confident about your salary and benchmark that you are 90% above average so similar, you may try to switch some of the MC#3 to OC3 and MC#4 to OC2. (I am not sure if you can actually do that in the appeal or not, but at least you will get the feedback from the assessor in the worst-case scenario.)
  – OC2: you just need to point out that those websites, events, and attendees met the criteria as you can simply read from the Tech Nation guideline (https://technation.io/visa-tech-nation-visa-guide/#optional-criteria)
  – OC3: focus on the quantifiable impact of your evidence. An offer letter is nothing, and it does not prove that you made an impact.

Please note that what you appeal, it will be other assessors apart from the first person to evaluate. And focus on pointing out how the first assessor makes the mistake, not adding new evidence.

Hope this helps.

[alex_james]

@alexnk, @Francisca_Chiedu and others. Please, one of recommenders is no longer a CEO in his organization and it’s showing on his LinkedIn as from 2018 - Dec 2022. He’s well known and when you Google his name or type just the company (product led), his name is going to pop up with different media he has been featured. Do you think it’s a smart idea to still use the letter? Is LinkedIn a benchmark or they will check through Google? This has been the issues why I haven’t submitted the application.

[alexnk]

Hi @alex_james. This is @alexnk speaking. Are you the same Alex as @Alexandr? LoL.

Back to the business, is this related to the topic above or a different case? Anyway I still don’t get your point why you should not use the letter, since it is qualified. But to answer your question, the assessor may look through Google to verify the recommender background if it is legit. If the person is no longer working, or change job, the person can still sign reference letter with new letter head or logos, in case, writing on behalf of company. If the person is no longer working, no logo is required, but the personal email, phone, and addresses are required.

[alex_james]

Hi @alexnk, thanks for your response. Lol, this is another person different from @Alexandr and it’s different topic entirely. Please, I’m still confused. Let me explain further…

The person is a serial founder and he gave me the letter around December but he’s no longer the CEO at the company (Edtech) . He founded another company and it’s just 4 months and I don’t want to get from the new company because it’s just a start up… If you Google his name, everything revolves around the previous company and I’m afraid using the new startup company would make my application weak… The Edtech company he head before, the company also used one of my Open-Source (for their lms integration) and I’m thinking this would also help me if he’s using that company but since he’s no longer working there, I’m totally confused. He’s will to write another one using the new company but I’m the one who’s holding back as it won’t make my application strong.

Please note that I applied 5 months ago and I was rejected (passed only OC2 and OC 3), so I decided to get stronger letters this time around and try to apply again…

[alexnk]

May I kindly suggest you edit&move your latest question to a new topic, to honor this topic owner and to avoid the confusion as well?

Then I will be able to assist with your new topic later. You may include the initial question and your latest question/explanation in the new topic as well.

Thank you for your understanding.

[May]

For LOR, do I understand that your had 2 people who weren’t immediate colleagues and 1 who you had worked with, the one the found a problem with. You could point out that you followed the guideline by stating how the applicant knows you which happens to be more than five years ago but there’s no point in the guideline that limits someone from knowing you less than 5 years.

Regarding the LOR, if I understand correctly, you had two individuals who were not immediate colleagues and one whom you had worked with, which is the rejected letter. You could potentially explain that you followed the guidelines by stating how the applicant knows you which happens to be more than five years ago. However, the guideline does not restrict you from using an individual who knows you for more than five years.

One issue could also be the way you’ve lumped some of your evidence together. E.g.

1.1 - Employment offer later with salary info and comparison from Glassdoor and official UK website
1.2 - Public Talk (link of talk, picture of my speaking , topic and date) ( 1/2 Talks)
1.1 and 1.2 are combined into 1 evidence

And also in your OC2 you lumped together Tech events and open source as they might have assessed per evidence.
Also, I don’t know if you showed evidence of attendance at the events and how they were sector leading, in which case you’ll be pointing to that in the appeal.