Please review this rejection feedback

Stage 1
1

Assessment panel feedback:

The candidate has applied for an exceptional promise visa and they have chosen Optional Criteria 2
(OC2) and 3 (OC3). The candidate is a software engineer with experience in the EdTech sector.

The candidate has presented reference letters describing them as competent developer. However, the evidence presented is not enough to support the mandatory criteria. Leading school-level branches of different associations at their university is also not evidence enough to award MC.

For OC2, the candidate has been involved in a multitude of mentoring and volunteering activities, some since their university years. This is a noble endeavour but, in order to qualify for OC2, this has to be part of an organised program. Additionally, the GDG event doesn’t qualify as a sector-leading event as the
guidelines require. OC2 is not awarded.

OC3 is awarded.

2

It is possible you did you application in a rush to meet the March 31st Deadline. It appears you didn’t share a compelling mandatory criteria. I think you may be able to get the OC3 as GDG is a sector recognised programme. It appears your recommenders didn’t write a compelling Recommendation Letter.

3

Exceptional promise

MC #1: reference letter that states my involvement in a Nonprofit organization (NACOS) Nigeria association of computing students. Submitted as a single document

MC #2: Invitation letter to annual forum and training program (NAPSS) + appreciation letter from (NAPSS) National association of physical science students. Where I talked spoke as a guest speaker on “Ethics of technology and data privacy” + a reference letter from a Nonprofit organization (GEGAS) Africa’s mission of equipping African students from low-
income backgrounds with the digital skills necessary for self-employment and employment
opportunities in the digital sector.
Submitted as a single document

MC #3: Evidence of high remuneration. Evidences are my employment letter + Salary review letter. Both stated the amount . I converted them to GBP.
Submitted as a single document

OC2 #1: Evidence of contribution to the digital economy through volunteering at DevFest. Reference letter from the head of GDG (Google Developers Groups) at the state that I spoke + the flier (photo) + my speaker tag(photo).
Submitted as a single document

OC2 #2 Evidence of impact at Stem club at Brookstone Best Brains School (primary school).

  • Reference letter + picture evidence
    Submitted as a single document
1 Like
4

Yes I was kinda rushing. I have provided a full detail of my documents. Please help me and review it

5

Please guy how do I go about the appeal :pray:, I really don’t know how to go about it. Should I send a mail?

6

Did the Devefest organiser state why you were asked to speak? Based on recent feedback, NACOS and NAPSS may not meet the current bar for GTV.

7

Yes the organizer did

8

Ask for a review and point them to evidence not considered and make clarifications where necessary. Sometimes an assessor may not know the value of an evidence in your home country. Providing convincing explanation may make them overturn the earlier decision.

1 Like
9

Thank you so much :+1:, I will do that

10

Feedback 1:
The candidate is a software engineer with experience in the EdTech sector. The
candidate has presented reference letters describing them as competent developer. However, the evidence presented is not enough to support the mandatory criteria. “Leading school-level branches of different associations at their university” is also not evidence enough to award MC.

In the Tech Nation guide, under “Examples of Relevant Evidence.”

“You led the growth of a non-profit organization or social enterprise with a specific focus on the digital technology sector, as evidenced by reference letter(s) from leading industry expert(s) describing your work, or as evidenced by news clippings or similar evidence.”

Appeal: I led the growth of a nonprofit organization xxxx. xxxx, a nonprofit organization as mentioned in the file “Mandatory_Criteria_1_-_Evidence_of_H0xAsP6.pdf” on page 1, paragraph 1; primarily operates within student environments. In the “About” section of their LinkedIn page, it states, “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to drive and foster computing/IT enhancement, local content drive and ‘xxxxxx’ innovation in xxx country, xxxx organization is playing at the forefront in students’ environment.”

Below is the url to xxxx organization’s LinkedIn page for further review.
xxxxx url to LinkedIn page

Appeal: I led the growth of a Social Enterprise xxxxx. xxxx is a Social Enterprise based on the mission provided in filename “xxxx” on page 3, paragraph 1. The organization’s focus on equipping xxxx continent students from low-income backgrounds with digital skills aligns with the goal of addressing a social issue—specifically, the lack of access to digital education and employment opportunities for underprivileged students.

“You command a high salary or other remuneration for your services, as evidenced by commercial or employment contracts with salary information including any bonus and equity options and history of earnings”

Appeal : As part of the evidence documents mentioned in the Tech Nation guide, I provided evidence of high remuneration, which was not addressed in the feedback for Mandatory Criteria.

Feedback 2:

For OC2, the candidate has been involved in a multitude of mentoring and volunteering activities, some
since their university years. This is a noble endeavour but, in order to qualify for OC2, this has to be part
of an organised program. Additionally, the GDG event doesn’t qualify as a sector-leading event as the
guidelines require. OC2 is not awarded

Appeal: GDG’s program “DevFest” is recognized as a sector-leading event series in the technology and developer communities. DevFest, short for Developer Festival, is a series of community-led developer conferences that take place around the world. These events are organized by local Google Developer Groups (GDGs) and focus on Google’s developer technologies and other trending topics in the tech industry.

Please help me and review my appeal @Francisca_Chiedu @alexnk

11

I think you have a chance on your appeal for your exceptional promise.

MC: On the high salary, did you provide the industry benchmark as well? How much higher than average? Usually, more than 90% of people will be easy to influence the assessor, less than that still have good chances, but lower respectively.

OC2: I think you can make a point on the appeal about the sector, by pointing to the right paragraph of evidence and reference letter. It should be straightforward.

  • Were you the main/senior speaker?
  • Can you also point out that the course you taught was a structured program?
  • Was your contribution to the Stem club a structured program and/or non-paid as well?
    Points these out. I hope this helps @Ifexalex
1 Like
12

Noted , thank you @alexnk

13

I just got endorsed today. I submitted my appeal 12 April .

6 Likes
14

Thanks for the support. I just got endorsed today after appealing

1 Like
15

I have been rejected today but I provided all the documents to show that I am a leader and CEO.
Contracts signed between companies and I were considered as contractor but that is not so. I signed because I am the CEO.
Letter from these Institutions states that I am the CEO. I even add company registration from 2013 and works with reference letters from the institution.
These letter were considered by Tech-nation as contractor.
Companies wrote about my works and programming skills but they only complained about my skills that the talked about.

16

sorry to hear about your rejection. If you can share the assessor’s feedback, it will allow people to assist you.

17

Congratulation. Glad you gave it a shot.

1 Like
18

I am not a contractor but they wrote contractor because I signed the document. I think they did not verify the company registration certificate… since it bears my name and all the works are from 2013 but they only looked at 2021 to 2023. which means other letters from companies that recommend my work and stated that they used the company’s software from 2015 were not checked.

techforum
techforum1074×840 189 KB

19

I want to submit review form.

20

Congrats @Ifexalex, I can see that in your case it took more than the stated 28 days to get the outcome of the review.

1 Like