Hello,
I had applied for exceptional promise. Unfortunately, my application was rejected in 13 days for all (Mandatory, OC2 and OC3) criteria. I am considering appealing against the decision as I feel the rejection reasons are not justified. I would highly appreciate any inputs towards the appeal idea from the group.
Details for my application are below
Recommendation Letters
- LOR1 from principal consultant of a company, currently in UK, who is a seasoned data science professional with 13+ years of experience and he himself is global talent visa holder under the exceptional talent category. I have worked with him on several projects.
- LOR2 from a senior vice president of a company who holds around 22+ year of experience in IT domain. I have worked with him on various initiatives at the same company.
- LOR3 from the group product manager of the company who holds around 17+ year of experience in leveraging AI and ML implementation. He has mentored me on various projects and knows my work closely.
Mandatory criteria (4 documents)
- Document which showcases my level of expertise, my leadership and my contribution to various initiatives in the growth of a digital technology company with proof of employment, awards, sample images of product etc.
- Continuation of document1, this document demonstrates the project where I lead executions and a reference letter supporting the evidences from the head of company with 25+ year of experience in the tech domain.
- Proof of High salary, bonus and rapid career progression. Included snapshots of offer letter and comparision with the average from payscale, glassdoor.
- Hackathon judge - I was invited as judge member at 2 prestigious hackathon events. Both the events had 500+ participants each where I evaluated their ideas/implementations. Attached invitation letter, appreciation letter, photos of event and participants testimonials.
Optional criteria 2 (3 documents)
- I was selected as an independent reviewer at edtech (one of India’s leading with over 10 million users) to set-up and review their Data Science program. I helped the entire company to set-up their data science program curriculum. Evidence provided by email communication and appreciation received from the team.
- Led development of a novel approach to tackle Breast Cancer detection. This was an open-source project completely independent from my day-to-day work and was done in collaboration with a group.
- Reference letter from the CEO of startup describing my work in detail, its impact and milestones achieved.
Optional criteria 3 (3 documents)
- Impact of implementation of a global framework and development of a converter application on the Indian financial ecosystem. Also related with how this can be helpful in UK’s financial ecosystem.
- Continuation of above document with impact of projects and reference letter supporting the evidence. The reference letter again was from a senior vice president with 20+ year experience in the IT domain.
- Played a leadership role in development of 10+ Data Science use cases and reference letter form a data science professional with 11+ years’ experience in the field. In the document detailed about 2 use cases and its impact on the Indian financial system.
Below attached is the assessment panel feedback:
Panel feedback: The applicant should not be endorsed for the Exceptional Promise visa. He has not provided compelling and sufficient evidence to meet the criteria. He has applied under Optional Criteria 1 and 3 (OC1 and OC3). We also note that the second recommender states that he has known the applicant since 2018 through various industry product meets; there is a paper he claims to have authored in 2017 - we are not convinced that the applicant is early in his digital technology career and with less than 5 years of experience in the field. We have given him the benefit of doubt and continued to assess him for the Promise pathway.
My thoughts: They are mentioning I applied under OC1 and OC3 which is not the case. I applied for OC2 and OC3. I completed my graduation in 2018 and the paper was published during my study. Also, the recommender has clearly mentioned that we meet in 2018 at an industrial event and worked from together from July 2019 to February 2022.
Panel feedback: There are multiple challenges with the evidence. Almost all of it is self-authored and unverified. There is no press or industry report, third party or external evidence, to corroborate any of the claims made by the applicant, other than internal letters or letters from persons who have worked at the same organisation as the applicant or are aware of his work. The latter is not sufficient. There are multiple screenshots of images, letters and other materials that have been cut and pasted onto a single page in collage form and this also does not meet the guidelines. There are multiple external links that the assessor is not required to access. We also note that all the mandatory recommendation letters and the reference letters show multiple signs of common authorship and this leads to a lot of questions about their authenticity.
While the three mandatory recommendation letters are complimentary of the applicant, they only describe his roles and projects. We are unable to see any evidence of how and why the applicant is one of the world’s leading emerging experts in digital technology with the potential to be at the forefront of his field. We also note, with due respect, that the second and third recommenders don’t show anything in their background to confirm how they are acknowledged experts in the digital technology field.My thoughts: As per technation “You should only share data if you have permission to do so, Tech Nation cannot advise regarding NDA’s or whether you should share any particular data. I have also given copy of the NDA. Also, wherever possible I have given actual snip of product/applications.
Both the recommender are experts in digital technology field with around 20+ year of experience. They are currently working at senior management levels in big tech companies.
Feedback regarding mandatory cirtieria paragraph
My thoughts: As mentioned in the guide, I am satisfying 3 examples of leading a development at a product led company, commanding a high salary and being a senior panelist/judge member at hackathons. It is very evidently mentioned in all the documents along with proofs.
Feedback regarding OC2
My thoughts: As mentioned in guide, I have demonstrated by giving email communication and reference letter my claim which clearly shows that I have gone beyond my day-to-day profession and contributed to the advancement of sector. both collaborations where out of my professional day-to-day jobs
Feedback regarding OC3
My thoughts: Here the panel has written about my current job role whereas there is no mention about my current company as it has been less than 12 months since I joined this role. Also, the recommender holds a senior vice president position and has 18+ year experience in tech field. The panel has completely missed one of the document.
The last paragraph in panel feedback
My thoughts: This felt very absured as of the entire statement the panel has picked up just one line and criticised my application on that. I have clearly mentioned in the statement in details where I plan to contribute to the AI field. I also mentioned 2 examples of UK initiatives where I believe my skills and experience perfectly aligned. Merely using one statement from the entire Personal Statments felt very absured.
I would appreciate it if I could get any feedback. Just tagging a few members.
@Francisca_Chiedu
@Mors_E
@Ayomi
@vincent_o2
@hsafra
@alex_james
Thanks,
Yash