I applied for the Global Talent Visa Stage-1 Tech Nation Endorsement on January 1, 2024. Unfortunately, I received a rejection email on January 15, 2024.
Need help for appeal/review.
I submitted the following documents:
Recommendation Letters (3 Documents)
Mandatory Criteria (4 Documents)
Optional Criteria - OC1 (4 Documents)
Optional Criteria - OC3 (2 Documents)
3(a) RC from the Chief Digital Officer (CDO) of a renowned Digital Bank clearly mentioning that;
I led the development of a very unique and innovative technology platform.
How I volunteered my time, energy and expertise to guide the industry.
How unconventional it was and how it required me extensive research.
How challenging it was
And how my skill set can benefit the UK’s digital ecnonomy sector
3(b) RC from the Chief Digital Officer (CDO) of another renowned Digital Bank.
Described, how I led the initiative from technical inception to design and then development to implementation.
Described what the platform is.
Appreciated & Acknowledged my contibution for the impact.
Appreciated my exceptional skills.
How I will benefit the UK’s digital ecnonomy.
3(c) RC from the CEO of a UK Based Digital Technology Company for which I had worked (remotely) for around 10 Years and launched two Digital Technology Products. I have been awarded equity as well for my contributions other than my day-to-day job role, even after I had left.
Described both the digital products that I led the development for.
The current valuation of both the product.
How I established the DevOps department.
The sweat equity that I have been awarded based on my contributions.
What technology, I implemented, where I went out of the way etc.
Recommended me and how I can benefit the startup eco-system of UK’s digital economy.
4(c) - Evidence of Growth (1 page pdf document) briefly showing the stats published on linkedin (snapshot) and showing alliance with Edison Alliance as committed partner to achieve 1 billion lives challenge from the platform of World Economic Forum.
OC1_1of4 - Evidence of Innovation.pdf (Explaining the innovation, attached a few diagrams and flows, clearly showing that I am the author)
OC1_2of4 - Proof of Product.pdf (Snapshots and links from Central Bank, Central Telecommunication Authority, Google results displaying my product listed with various Digital Banks and Youtube Videos etc etc to prove that the product exist and is well spoken about)
OC3_2of2 - Documentation on Product Designs.pdf (Documentation on product designs or architecture diagram Clearly showing my contribution)
your 5 evidences are not meeting the criteria as per TN guideline.
your 5 reference letters here are using too many space, rather than “evidence” which should be more important.
I would suggest to build up a new application, and providing more evidences, which are under this Tech Nation Visa Guide - Tech Nation . You can appeal the point that you are in doubt though, but I don’t think they will be efficient to pass. However it may be good to get the most feedback from the 2nd assessor so that you can improve on your next application.
As your application has already been reviewed by Tech Nation, and you have already received their feedback, this is the most crucial feedback you should take into consideration. My review would just be regular thoughts toward primary Tech Nation feedback.
I would advise you to build up new application. (You may appeal to Tech Nation to clear up your doubts). And then after they are done, with a clear understanding of TN guidelines and less doubt in your evidence, I would advise you to share your brief of evidence in this forum again. Many of ours are here to help you.
@aqueue Nacsoft, Alex and Francisca have said the most.
There are two - three things that strike me.
You are good on LORs - some people usually have comments on the strengths of their LORs.
The WEF which appears to be your strongest recognition at a global level does not mention you as speaker specifically. As a result, it could not be verified from a third`-party standpoint.
For OC1 - the main issue identified is not the pieces of evidence in and of themselves, rather, how the “innovation” compares to other similar solutions elsewhere. Look at it like this, if you built a digital wallet say for cryptocurrency, an assessor may then compare it with the likes of Binance or Coinbase and all of a sudden, the innovative solution may not be as innovative as positioned anymore. In this case, a stronger evidence could be top rank on Product Hunt, front cover mention on Forbes, patent(s) and just something utterly revolutionary/disruptive.
Furthermore, it may help to reconsider how your pieces of evidence are structured. From the feedback, with a few edits here and there, you should be good to go. As a general note, I usually would advise against having too many reference letters especially as an Exceptional Talent applicant who is expected to have a ton of externally verifiable evidence.
If you are up for it, you can share the complete structure of your submission with comments on what each item is, perhaps you’d get better informed feedback.
@ask4jubad - Thank you so very much for being so kind and nice. I really appreciate your valuable feedback. I did share the complete structure of my submission along with comments on a separate thread but then Francisca requested that it’s too long for her to read so I should create a shorter version so I created this thread. For the detailed and complete structure, will be grateful if you can refer to the following thread and share your feedback. I am tagging you there as well.
@aqueue Do not take it too hard. Sometimes, it’s obvious that assessors do not take enough time to sift through the documents and understand the message behind each piece of evidence. As such, a solid candidate may be missed as a false negative.
That said, here are additional things that I think you can use to improve your submission (they are minute but can tip the scale in your favour)
Question: What is the main reason you have chosen to apply for the route of ‘Exceptional Talent’ (rather than Exceptional Promise)?
Answer:Exceptional Promise is for those who have less than 5 years of experience. I have been recognized as a leading talent in the digital technology sector and have invested more than 10 years. I have a proven record for innovation and significant impact as a senior employee of “three" product-led digital technology companies in “two” continents.
Remember, always shift the focus to what matters - why did you have to mention Exceptional Promise? So, WATCH this across all your documents. Language and tone are as important as the pieces of evidence.
MC - Item 4(d) shows evidence not about you and too-close-to-submission date evidence. Based on their feedback, you may want to only use the WEF program as a supporting document for OC1 and not a main evidence for MC. The key is to always CLEARLY indicate how each piece of evidence is about you.
You can also add current salary comparison as a standalone evidence across your roles.
I noted this bit "- How I volunteered my time, energy and expertise to guide the industry.
" in item 3(a). Is it possible to make this as a standalone evidence for MC? For instance, if you have emails, letters, certificates, links to verify this impact.
OC1 - Numbers, statistics, metrics are good. In this case, it may be important to highlight early in your documents that you have consistently built innovative products in different entities and continents.
a - Built blaaaa in Pakistan (showcased at the WEF in November 2023, personal interview with … (6K views, 2k likes and 30 mins watch time))
b - Built blaa and bluu in the UK (high salary, equity offering etc.)
OC3, while I don’t see any problems with this, adding more numbers here would be helpful as well as in the letter(s) provided by referees. Remember the 10 million underprivileged individuals? This is where it would be very useful. More so, if it can be verified with snapshots and/or links.
I hope these help you further to put forward a stronger submission.
@Francisca_Chiedu, @alexnk, @Nacsoft, and especially@ask4jubad - I would like to express my gratitude to you and all the other members of this forum for your kindness and helpfulness. Before submitting my application, I thoroughly went through this forum and carefully considered the comments shared by you and other generous members. I submitted my application on January 2, 2024, and received a rejection email on January 15, 2024. I returned to the forum and spent several days crafting my appeal, taking into account your previous comments and the information shared by other members. I also attempted to seek support from a few firms, but their costs were too high, so I decided to proceed on my own. I lodged my appeal on January 29, 2024, and successfully received endorsement on February 20, 2024. Once again, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all of you.
Hello @ask4jubad, @Nacsoft, @alexnk, @Francisca_Chiedu, and @Amara_O. I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to all of you for your dedication, guidance, and support. Your willingness to take valuable time out of your day to assist others is truly commendable. It was through your numerous posts and guidance that I was able to achieve my goals. I want to give credit to all of you, as well as the other members whom I couldn’t mention individually. Thank you so much, you all are truly amazing!
I recently received a rejection based on certain criteria and it appears that my application may not have been thoroughly reviewed. I would greatly appreciate any assistance in preparing an appeal, particularly addressing the following points:
Their references are supportive but do show signs of common authorship.
Regarding OC3, while there are letters of support suggesting strong contributions, most appear to be during their freelancing periods. Not only that, they are only evidenced through support letters - which Tech Nation guidelines make clear is insufficient.
For 1. I believe this perception might stem from the fact that the application was largely prepared by myself, leading to a consistent style across documents. Should I clarify this point and emphasise the distinct and genuine support from each of my referees ?
For 2. In my defence, I have three pieces of evidence supporting this criterion, of which only one pertains to freelance work. The other two are substantiated by reference letters. I seek guidance on how to effectively argue that two letters comprehensively demonstrate my significant contributions to the field. These letters do not have any evidence but they are from Managing Director and Director respectively.