Reapplication for the Global Tech Talent Visa (Exceptional Promise)

Stage 1
1

I have submitted an appeal and expect a positive outcome. However, in case the appeal is unsuccessful, I am preparing a new application. This allows me 30–48 days to build a stronger case in the event that the appeal is rejected. I passed all criteria, including OC2 and OC3, but did not meet the requirements for the MC (Mandatory Criteria).

Here is my second attempt, along with the questions I have:

Mandatory Criteria (MC)

Evidence 1 (Commanded high salary or remuneration): My compensation is significantly higher than the regional average, demonstrating that I earn 2–3 times more than professionals with over 15 years of experience in my field despite being an analyst for four years. (This evidence was not flagged in my previous application.)
Evidence 2 (Led the growth of a product-led digital technology company, product, or team): A letter of reference from an industry leader affirming that I am a key senior individual contributor at a product-led startup.
Evidence 3 (Led the growth of a product-led digital technology company, product, or team): Another reference letter from an industry leader, reinforcing my role as a significant senior individual contributor at a product-led startup.
Evidence 4 and Question 1(Led or contributed to a large technology-led industry initiative): I plan to strengthen this evidence strategically. I intend to move it from optional criteria to mandatory by first seeking community support. As a volunteer research analyst, I have contributed to data privacy and cybersecurity reports for three countries (Uganda 2020, Kenya 2020, and Botswana 2022). These reports are frequently cited by academics, researchers, policymakers, and major news outlets. Should I include all three reports to demonstrate continuity, or would using just two suffice, with the third as supplementary for OC2? I’ve noticed that some applications are denied on the grounds of lacking continuity.

Optional Criteria 2 (OC2)

Moving some of my publications to MC is tricky.

Evidence 5: Tableau Public profile showing active participation with over 7,000 views.
Evidence 6: A blog with over 10,000 views on data-related topics and a WhatsApp channel with over 1,000 members discussing data analytics topics.
Evidence 7: The third publication, but its inclusion depends on the feedback I received regarding Question 1.

Optional Criteria 3 (OC3)

I have cleared this section and do not plan to move any documents.

Evidence 8 (Significant Technical Contribution): Reference letters from Company 1, along with examples of my work from the company repository, salary increases, and other related details.
Evidence 9 (Significant Technical Contribution): Additional reference letters from Company 2, examples of my work, and evidence of impact and recognition.
Evidence 10: Self-documented records of Company 3 major communications, accolades, and announcements of work completed. cc: @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu @Surender_S @alexnk @hsafra @cosmic.wilderness @May

2

Hi, Hope you get a positive outcome in the appeal itself. When did you submit your appeal? Have you received any edits so far? Are you applying from within the UK or outside the UK? Also, could you share your high salary numbers?

3

What was the feedback in the first application? Are all those points incorporated and how?

4

I submitted my appeal last week. For the sake of my mental health, I am not monitoring the edits. If the appeal is successful, great! If not, I have something else in the pipeline. As for the salary, it depends on how much you are paid in your region, and I am not sure if the numbers will make sense to you since it is relative. I have applied outside the UK.

5

image
image919×406 73.2 KB

In my previous application, I primarily emphasized salary, letters of endorsement, and internal numbers as my mandatory criteria. I am now adding my involvement in a significant industry initiative, specifically my contribution to the data privacy and cyber security yearly reports (I have three publications that mention my name as a contributor). Since I will be removing the publication from OC2, I will be strengthening my optional criteria by including my blog, where I regularly share insights and analyses related to data that were not included in the first. cc @pahuja

2 Likes
6

@Ball nice! That looks like a good plan.

7

Hey @Ball, since your OC2 + OC3 was passed last time, let’s try to alter it as little as possible. It’s good to let remain one of the data privacy reports work in OC2 + shift the other 2 strong ones to MC.

With that said, is there a possibility of adding a few more things to MC in addition to ref. letters? My worry is that since 2/4 MC evidences are still ref. letters, it may get flagged again. Can you add proofs available readily online to supplement those letters? Products you worked on? The impact + importance? News articles announcing their release? Detailed case studies? Awards / publications / speaking engagements?

8

Thanks @cosmic.wilderness same thing I was thinking in regards to the OC2 + OC3 are two publications enough in regards to contributing to a large industry initiative?

Regarding the reference letters, they are supported by data from two different companies.

  1. Company A (CEO & Co-founder of a Y Combinator-backed company):
  • The CEO mentioned the broad industry impact of my work.
  • Key examples:
    • I improved loan disbursement speed by 11% by identifying bottlenecks and optimizing processes. (There are document proofs, data, and internal communications to support this.)
    • I led the development of a robust monitoring and evaluation solution, which the company now uses to ensure loan repayment from clients. (Impact is a historical 90% repayment rate)
      (Evidence from internal repo of my work and few examples)
  1. Company B:
  • The letter from the COO highlights my research to improve the earnings of 50,000 drivers through a pricing initiative. (There are news articles on this, but they don’t mention me directly. However, the COO confirms my involvement in the letter.) (I have a screen grab of the document that shows i worked on this initiative)
  • I also created a web dashboard that improved the company’s fulfillment rate by 5%, leading to $84,000 in additional gross revenue. (I have a screen grab of the dashboard and how it is used)

This information was submitted in the first application anyway. (I’m also wondering if the reviewer saw the additional data and evidence attached to the reference letter. The reference letters themselves were one page each, but the supporting evidence was included on pages 2 and 3. Since the reviewer didn’t acknowledge this evidence in their feedback, I’m concerned that the additional pages may have been overlooked. This lack of clarity is one of the reasons I’m seeking a re-evaluation.)

9

I think you need to drop one or both of the reference letters and swap them with external evidence. TN didn’t endorse saying that there are too many letters and it looks like your going with the same route again

1 Like