We will definitely repeat history if we don’t learn from history. A big shout out to those applicants who post their rejections on this platform, because it takes humility and courage to make our shortcomings public.
These rejections are actually incredible resources. If new applicants study them, they can avoid the same potholes others have tripped over. I am opening this topic to analyse actual rejection feedback and provide suggestions on how to mitigate these risks. I will be updating this, hopefully, weekly and I welcome other experts to support.
Rejection Feedback Sample #1: The “Over-Experienced”
“The applicant is seeking endorsement through the Exceptional Promise route despite having more than five years of experience. They need to justify why they still fit the ‘early-career’ criteria required for the Exceptional Promise route.”
We know the Exceptional Talent pathway is for established leaders who can show significant impact over the last five years while the Exceptional Promise pathway is for those with the potential to become leaders.
Beyond the level of impacts, that differentiates these pathways, there is also the ILR factor Talent applicants can settle in 3 years, while Promise applicants takes 5 years. Even with these, many applicants with 5+ years of experience still choose “Promise” because they feel it’s an easier pathway, assuming the bar for “potential” is lower than “talent.” this can be strategic, however, this may be one of the reasons for your rejection.
How to Mitigate This
If you have more than five years of experience but are applying for Promise, you must be strategic about it. Don’t leave it to the assessor to guess why you aren’t applying as a Talent.
1. Address it in your Personal Statement : Explicitly state why you fit the “early-career” definition. Tech Nation usually views “early-career” as having a bit less than or 5 years of digital technology experience. but have more experience in related generalist role, with transferable skills. So, state it clearly on your statement.
2. Weave the justification into your Evidence Descriptions : When describing your evidence, don’t just talk about what you did; subtly reinforce your “Promise” narrative.
For instance:
“I was invited to speak as a subject matter expert at this conference because of my specialised technical insights. While I have a career spanning 8 years, I spent the first 4 years in Education as a lecturer in the computer science department before pivoting into the digital tech sector 4 years ago, as detailed in my personal statement. Therefore, I am demonstrating my rapid trajectory and potential as an emerging leader within the tech ecosystem.”
The “Pivot” Narrative
If you have 5+ years of experience, your application could focus on one of these “justifiers”:
-
Career Pivot: How you recently switched from a non-tech field to a product-led tech role.
-
Academic Transition: You were in deep research or PhD studies and have only recently entered the commercial tech industry.
-
Recent Specialization: You moved from a generalist role (like IT support or services) into a high-growth field like AI or SaaS product development.
By providing a clear justification for your chosen pathway, you remove the “guessing game” for the assessor and significantly lower the chance of a rejection based on years of experience.
Another reasons will be updated next week…
If you need expert support or personalised guidance on your Global Talent journey, feel free to reach out to me via LinkedIn