Hi everyone - I have received my ~lovely~ rejection and am hoping to get some advice for both an appeal and a re-application. I kind of agree with their feedback on how I structured the MC but I have some counterpoints for their criticisms and am looking for some solid legs to stand on. TLDR: I am a product marketing manager who was previously in HealthTech and am now in crypto!
My post on my evidence used is here, and my explanations for their critiques are as follows:
MC:
I had two recommenders emphasize how my work in growing product companies has both spurned new products and innovations, so thinking I could mention that
I kind of agree with their criticisms of my panel work, but HealthTech is incredibly integrated with the healthcare industry as it is not validated without healthcare professionals, and healthcare alone as a vehicle of entrepreneurship is not a pathway. For my panel, I was explicitly on it to give the opinion from the side of the digital tech, as was another panelist - the other two were doctors, AKA the only real recognized authenticators of this industry.
Panel work is also listed under a possible MC route
For MC, I think if I reapply I could clarify these concerns and add evidence that I have been contacted for interviews for my knowledge of blockchain oracles, and have met with students who contacted me through an official Alumni network to be mentored. Not sure if this will be enough though - please give advice on what other evidence is necessary.
OC1:
I was under the impression that OC1 for an employee of a company referred to proving that the company itself is innovative, which I feel that I did by showing how Forbes and Bloomberg have referred to both of my previous product companies as innovative, and how I have won an innovation award for my company. In this reasoning, the reviewer criticized how I have not personally authored a groundbreaking innovation with a patent, but as my company works on the blockchain, it is open source and patents are not possible.
They then go on to say I did not clearly demonstrate originality in the global marketplace - but I have article clippings that call these products “first-of-their-kind.”
I have read lots of posts on innovation and seen this one go both ways (either showing that the companies are new concepts or showing personal innovations within these companies). How can I argue this? If I reapply, I could also add screenshots of how I’ve innovated our product marketing strategy and organization and have used it to release major products (along with their PR clippings) but unsure if this is the right route as well. Any advice on this category would be great!!
I’d like to appeal if only to clarify OC1 and get additional feedback for another application. I’m determined to make this visa route work so any and all advice is very much appreciated! Also searching for any immigration lawyers with good experience with Tech Nation craziness @Francisca_Chiedu@alexnk@ask4jubad would love your insights, and @007 I know you’ve just gone through this so would love yours as well!
Thanks everyone - I’m keeping my head up and anyone else on here with a rejection should too!! We’ll get there in the end
I am sorry to hear that your application was not considered positively.
I can comment quickly on the re-application action. While there are no guarantees, you can use the opportunity to call out the reviewer and perhaps get more details about the specific “real” cause of concern. To do this, you must emphasize that the reviewer may have “wrongfully” not considered healthtech as fit or relevant as a field in digital technology and simply assessed it as “health entrepreneurship”.
You must also reiterate that there’s nowhere in the guide that it mentions that as an employee or founder, innovation should have been made solely/personally. To the best of my knowledge, one only needs to have made significant contribution to an innovation. In this case, you have included references and have also had the likes of Forbes and bloomberg speak about the “one-of-a-kind”-ness of your innovations. More specifically, it’s almost impossible as an employee to singly come up with an innovation that is devoid of input/participation from others.
Thank you so much for your response! Do think changing my evidences in the ways mentioned above would help my next application or would it further confuse the question?
If you have not made it clear in this current application that it is healthtech, then you can just clarify in the appeal. With respect to submitting another application entirely, you must make it obvious that your participation has been as a healthtech professional and not as a health entrepreneur.
From the closing sentences of the reviewer in MC1 and OC1, they use the word “clearly”. This can mean two either of two things - that your evidences were not clear enough to facilitate the endorsement or that the evidences were in essence not suitable/sufficient.
If it’s the former, I think your reapplication should be easier because you only need to make things “clear”. Otherwise, you would perhaps need additional support documents to back up your submission.
Hi @ellagna I am sorry to hear that you were rejected.
From what I understand from your information,
MC: I think you may be able to appeal if you have enough information that you can point out to within your evidences.
You will need to clearly clarify and connect what you do to the company’s achievement as well. This can be the email snapshots / chat app about your project you were assigned and worked on. Do not just leave the gap between “what you did” and “media mention of the company success”.
OC3: It is quite a challenge. You may need to show the SEO traffic impact toward the total traffic in a way with a proven result and track record with numbers/data.
I’m sorry to hear you were rejected. Your application is actually quite similar to mine, particularly with the regards to the issues you had with MC.
Has tech nation marked anyone else down for using being on a panel as evidence?
I don’t believe it was the panel itself that marked it down, but the fact that the panel was my only outside evidence and was incorrectly unacknowledged as an industry event. I’m not entirely sure though, I’ll have to appela to find out!
@Francisca_Chiedu sorry to tag you once again but maybe you can shed light on this for both?
@Francisca_Chiedu @alexnk @ask4jubad would love your insights, and @007 I know you’ve just gone through this so would love yours as well!