Need help to appeal (Exceptional Promise - AI, Machine Learning)

Stage 1
1

Hello, I’ve applied for the Global Talent Visa under the Exceptional Promise route. It is rejected (MC, OC1 and OC3). I don’t think the documentation was thoroughly reviewed based on some comments from feedback.
I will appeal and would greatly appreciate any feedback or advice. I thought I presented strong evidences, especially for MC and OC3. That’s why I was disappointed by the results. Most important part of my appeal is to show them my contribution to the projects as I understand.
Your help would be truly valuable. :blush:
Thank you so much for any help you can give me when you have the time, and I would really appreciate it right now. @Akash_Joshi @Raphael @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja

Summary of my profile
I’m a data scientist who works on the intersection of computer vision, ML, and AI. I hold an MSc degree and have 5 years of industry experience. I have co-founded health-tech Startup 1. Now I’m working as a Data Scientist in a UK based Company 1 that is a generative AI company works in the field of VFX.

LOR

  1. From CIO(Chief Innovation Officer) of Company 1, who is a global top leader in the tech industry
  2. From Co-Founder of Company 1, who is a global top leader in the VFX, has a well-known public profile
  3. Former colleague, with whom I co-founded together in my previous Startup 1
    (All know about my work for over two years)

Mandatory Criteria

  1. VFX Project Awards
  • Movie 1 I’ve worked on won VES(Visual Effects Society) award, screenshot of awards page is added.
  • Music video I’ve worked on won MTV Video Music Award under Best Visual Effects. Added a screenshot from YouTube that shows the music video is watched by more than 200 million.
  1. Credentials
  • IMDB page of my profile. This page shows movie credits and music video I’ve worked on. It shows that I have credits for award winning Movie 1 and music video.
  • Screenshot from end titles of Movie 1. My name is in there under vfx credits.

OC1

  1. Msc Thesis
  • Subject of my Msc thesis is directly parallel to my product developed by Startup 1 I founded. Link to my MSc thesis, summary of the abstract, and view numbers and distribution that shows worldwide views.
  1. Company1 Innovation News
  • VOX video link that explains the technology Company 1 developed. In the video it says this tech is changed the vfx industry. This video is created by VOX independently, there is no involvement of Company 1.
  • News clip and link that FastCompany listed Company 1 as one of the most innovative companies.

OC3

  1. Acceptance Letter of 1512( R&D Entrepreneurship Support Program) TUBITAK Grant
  • I got 3 national R&D Grant for my own Startup 1 I co-founded. Added acceptance letter of 1512 TUBITAK Grant given by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Translation is included.
  1. Acceptance Letter of 1507 (SME R&D Start-up Support Program) TUBITAK Grant
  • Added acceptance letter of 1507 TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) Grant. Translation is included.
  1. Startup 1 Ownership Documents
  • Added Trade Registry Gazette that shows I am the co founder of the Startup-1.
  1. MVP Pilot Studies
  • A peer-reviewed veterinary research paper featuring our product. Our product developed by Startup 1 is used in the field during this research. Company and product names are highlighted in the paper. Field photos are added showing the prototype in use and images captured by our product are shown in the paper and added.
  1. Competition Prizes and Accelerator Programs
  • Acceleration Program 1 participation and first prize. Added photo of me from demo day presentation and moment I receive the first prize.
  • Entrepreneurship Competition 1 first prize. Added photos of me and two other co-founder while taking our prize. News clip of official announcement of the competition and prize is added.
  • Accelerator Program 2 participation and final presentation. Photo of me added presenting at demo day.
  1. Startup 1 News Press
  • Screenshot from Webrazzi Article about
  • National TV news clip reports Entrepreneurship Competition 1 and Startup 1 as first winner. Brief on-air interview with me as co-founder. Screenshot from new clip is added.

Assessment panel feedback:
While all evidence has been thoroughly reviewed, not every piece of evidence has been commented on below.

The applicant has an entrepreneurial background, with experience as a data scientist for Company 1 and Company 2. Whilst this is a promising career history, the roles do not demonstrate a
significant advancement in terms of accountability. For the Mandatory Criterion, all evidence must be from within the last 5 years. The letters of recommendation speak to the applicant’s contributions to projects but lack specific examples of personal acclaim or the authorship of field-advancing innovations, serving primarily as character references.

Regarding the Mandatory Criterion, the evidence of awards for the film “Movie 1” is not suitable. This evidence relates to the recognition of a project, not the applicant’s personal recognition as a potential leading talent in digital technology. Similarly, the IMDB credits do not validate pioneering promise in the technology sector. MC IS NOT MET.

For Optional Criterion 1, the applicant’s MSc thesis is not considered valid evidence of field
advancement as per the guidelines. We acknowledge that Company 1 is an innovative company, but the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the applicant has personally authored any field-advancing work or new digital concept. OC1 IS NOT MET.

For Optional Criterion 3, the evidence relating to the applicant’s start-up work is not compelling. R&D grants, pilot study details, and pitch deck slides demonstrate intention and potential, but they are not objective proof of a significant contribution or impact that meets the standard for this criterion.
Furthermore, we note that some of this experience appears to be contracting, which is not eligible for OC3. OC3 IS NOT MET.

The applicant has not met the Mandatory Criterion or any of the two chosen Optional Criteria. We also note that some evidence submitted exceeds the 3-page limit.

On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application. Their public profile is suggestive of merit. But the calibre of evidence is too poor to be confident of endorsement.

My Appeal includes:

  • LOR: There are sentences in the LOR like following and I think those can be counted as personal acclaim or the authorship. More than character references.

‘She improved the software… . It plays a role in following cutting-edge technology by bringing AI solutions to existing VFX pipelines.’

‘In addition to this, She helped to develop the software called XXX, which is used in-house and a cornerstone to all our workflows’

`…We used this YYY system and software in all our other projects. This is a development that affects every project and end result we deliver.’

‘She also handled all investor presentations and customer outreach’,
'She played a leading role in both technical development and strategic communication. She developed the AI software that identified DR stages with 98% accuracy using both open datasets and clinical data.’

  • About Movie 1 award they’ve said that this is a recognition of project. And do not count my personal contribution. However, IMDB page and credits at the end of Movie 1 shows and approves my ‘significant’ contribution. Also, my contributions to those movies and their impact are stated at the LOR’s too.

  • An IMDB page alone doesn’t indicate exceptional talent or a pioneer. However, to receive credit for a work, you must have made a significant contribution. I added my IMDB page to confirm this. If a project to which I made a significant contribution wins an award in the field I contributed, this also demonstrates recognition for my work. What do you think?

  • No mention about Music video and its award. Since they do not count IMDB page, I think they do not count my contribution on that project too? Not sure. I need to appeal that too. Because the name of the music video and my contribution are also stated in the LOR’s too.

  • About OC3 I believe that 3 national R&D Grant given by TUBİTAK(The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye) totaling around 95000 GBP is prestigious grant nationally and shows national recognition. Also, pitch deck/presentations do not mean much, but first prize at the two accelerator program(includes cash prize of around 15000 GBP), product used in the research and published a peer-reviewed paper shows more than intention. How can I present this part? Do you have any ideas?

  • Some obvious appeals.

    • There is NO evidence submitted exceeds the 3-page limit.
    • All evidences are from within the last 5 years.
    • Only my work at Company 2 is a contractor job. It is only stated in my CV. I did not show that work as example to MC, or any OC criteria. All the evidences are from my work at Company 1(my current company, I’m working for more than 2.5 years) and Startup 1(I was the co founder can not be contractor :smile: )
1 Like
2

Hi @Elif_K_Contar Sorry about the outcome!

Firstly, it is very hard to comment on any appeal-related posts without seeing the original application and validating the feedback against the application since the appeal success is very much dependent on the quality and content of your original application.

From the above outline shared:

  1. It looks like your application is largely self-claims without any third-party verification and this is the biggest challenge in your application outline followed by misplacement of evidences which are not even considered valid under criteria.
  2. The MC evidences dont seem to have any third-party verification of your own personal contribution to the impact. It looks like you were part of a team that build award-winning Movie and videos however no letter or strong validation to support your own contribution in this.
  3. MSc thesis is not a valid OC1 evidence. Same as above in OC1. You have self-claims and success of team projects however theres no specifics of your own personal contribution towards this innovative impact.
  4. Same with OC3: acceptance letters are not valid OC3 evidences. OC3 is about demonstrating impact in terms of quantified core metrics which is completely missing in all your evidences.
  5. It looks like you haven’t reviewed the TN guidelines throughly to map and place the correct acceptable evidences under the criterias. Please do go through it.

From the above, the appeal chances look negligible. Would instead recommend evaluating your profile for endorsement deeply and reapplying with a better structured and accurate application.

1 Like
3

@Elif_K_Contar I understand how disappointing this outcome can feel, but please take heart.

You see, it is very difficult to assess an appeal without seeing the original application, since the outcome heavily depends on how well the evidence was presented and aligned with the criteria.

From what you have outlined, to be honest, most of your evidence seems based on self-claims without independent and reputable external validation of your personal contribution. Some evidence also don’t align with the official guidelines, which weakens the overall application strength.

That said, I would still encourage you to go ahead with the appeal. Even if it does not succeed, it helps you gather additional feedback that can be very useful if you decide to reapply. I have supported someone before, whom I told his chances of going through an appeal is 10%, but still encouraged he goes ahead anyways. We responded to all concerns raised strategically and pointing the reviewer to some areas where there may have been oversights or omissions, surprisingly the appeal was eventually successful.

Note! This is to say no one can truly predict the outcome of an application or appeal without seeing the original application and original evidence presented. Even at that, applicants’ cases are different, so the strength of their evidence, application, career trajectory and some other factors, like in the case of this individual.
Ever since then, I have decided to encourage applicants to appeal regardless, because

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take - Wayne Gretzky

The only failure is not to try - George Clooney

All the best.

3 Likes
4

Your application shows technical strength, but the rejection feedback reveals three critical gaps that appeals rarely overcome. The assessors correctly identified that your evidence lacks independent third-party validation of your personal contributions. This is the most important issue to understand for future applications.

The awards evidence you submitted demonstrates project success rather than your individual recognition within the field. I’ve seen similar patterns in past applications where talented professionals submit project awards without clear documentation of their specific technical contributions - or why THEY were the ones responsible for getting it. Your letters of recommendation need to explicitly detail what innovative work you personally authored, not just describe your general involvement in successful projects.

For your startup evidence, the grants and competition prizes show potential rather than measurable impact on the digital technology sector.

Let me know if you need specific exampes of how to improve your application based on your evidences. Happy to help!

2 Likes
5

I have readthrough your evidence list but it appears most didn’t meet the criteria. The award you listed are clearly not related to digital technology sector, besides it is not in your name. For innovation, your MSc thesis clearly does not meet the criteria, it won’t even pass for OC4 as it is related to your master. I understand your frustration and we often say you lose nothing appealing but based on your overall presentation, you may just get more feedback on why it was rejected. You still have a bit of work to do to meet the criteria for endorsement.

2 Likes
6

Thank you all for the comments, it really helped me understand the feedback and see the gaps.

I now realise the biggest gap in my application was third-party validation of my personal ownership and contribution. I had been thinking of third-party validation as news/awards about the product rather than about me as an individual — which, in hindsight, is exactly what not to do.

I know appeals can’t include new evidence, so I’m keeping expectations realistic. I’ll focus the appeal on clarifications only:

• MC & OC1: I’ll reference specific lines in two LORs that detail my authored work and that these were deployed in production.
• OC3 (employment vs contracting): I’ll clarify that I’m an employee; both letters state this explicitly.
• OC3 (founder track): Our device from my former startup is cited by an external research group in a peer-reviewed paper and used in their study. I’ll reference this to show real-world use. I understand this is helpful but still needs stronger, quantified impact (adoption/metrics) in any future application.

If I re-apply, I’ll remove inappropriate items and focus on building clearer third-party validation of my authorship and impact.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond, I appreciate the guidance.

2 Likes