Hi everyone, it is sad to share that my application for Exceptional Talent under the Global Talent Visa (Tech Nation route) was rejected. I am now preparing my review / appeal submission and would really appreciate any guidance from this community.
Criteria outcome:
• MC – Rejected
• OC1 – Rejected
• OC3 – Rejected
Timeline:
• Date Applied: 08/01/2026
• Tech Nation Decision Date: 25/02/2026
• Application Update Received: 25/02/2026
Context from assessor feedback:
The panel acknowledged my senior roles at digital technology companies including Figma and Multiverse, but concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate industry-level recognition beyond employment. They also noted that my background in sales enablement and GTM is not typical for Exceptional Talent applications.
For Mandatory Criteria, the feedback stated that evidence such as the Sales Enablement Pro Award, podcasts, and mentorship evidence did not demonstrate the sustained level of sector recognition required.
For OC1, the assessor stated that while I submitted evidence relating to innovation and product launches at companies like Multiverse, the application did not include enough objective evidence proving my personal contributions beyond support letters or company growth narratives.
For OC3, the feedback suggested that the evidence submitted (including internal OKRs, presentations, press articles about company growth, and GTM work) did not sufficiently demonstrate impact at a level beyond expectations of my role or direct field-level impact.
My Appeal will focus on:
• MC: Clarifying evidence of recognition and leadership in the digital technology sector beyond my employer roles.
• OC1: Providing clearer framing of my work contributing to innovation in product-led technology companies, including GTM contributions to new product categories.
• OC3: Reframing the evidence to more clearly demonstrate the scale of my commercial and ecosystem contributions to product-led digital technology companies.
My Questions:
- In a review request, is it better to focus strictly on correcting the assessor’s interpretation of existing evidence, or can additional clarification/context be included if it helps explain the impact of the work?
2.Has anyone successfully appealed a decision where the panel felt the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate recognition beyond employment?
3.If anyone here has gone through the review process after an initial rejection, I would really appreciate any insight on what tends to make a strong reconsideration submission.
Thank you in advance for any guidance. I appreciate how generous this community is in helping people navigate this process.