Rejection Appeal: What do you think?

Hi everyone. This is the feedback received from TN and I just wanted to get honest feedback on the feasibility of getting this appealed or not. I applied as a business person for the Talent category.

I got rewarded 1/3 for my impact (OC3) but not MC and OC2 because of the reasons stated below.

MC: The ‘media company’ they complained about isn’t solely media but instead leverages digital technology in media through digital tech solutions used to advance the field and is serves as the sole revenue source. Also, for the Fintech company which they referenced, I provided Press Releases with pictures of me in it as proof through article of association, Financial Report (Internal documents) for the last 3 years as well as Zoom backend report on a fintech industry event showing number of attendees (over a thousand) which I organized. My LoR also spoke to this as well.

OC2: Speaking on their feedback on mentorship - I provided evidences dating back a 5 years span including News Paper feature in a major industry publication done in recognition of my services outside of work mentoring young girls new to the tech field; I also included my contribution on 2 structured platforms where I mentor founders, entrepreneurs on marketing their tech startups, from around the world. I also included media recognitions through Youtube videos and Links on interviews and links to other social media videos I was invited to participate in for a WIT campaign because of my contribution and impact to the field over time.

Kindly let me know your thoughts, thank you.



The applicant has applied for Exceptional Talent with Mandatory Criteria (MC) & Optional Criteria (OC)
2 & 3.
The applicant provided their CV and the three required reference letters as part of their application. The reference letters provide general comments and it is not clear to see a convincing level of recognition as a sustained leader in the digital technology sector. Furthermore, per guidelines, by Tech Nation definitions, the “digital technology sector” or “product-led digital technology companies” are defined as businesses that provide a proprietary digital technical service/product/platform/hardware as their primary revenue source. We are not convinced that the applicant’s work in PR and marketing at a media company relates to the digital technology sector of a product-led company. In addition, the applicant’s evidence include self-statement documents with some evidence related to their previous work at a FinTech company; however, it is not clear to see how they led the growth of the company as claimed in the documents.

For MC, the applicants are required to demonstrate recognition in digital technology. The individual
must demonstrate a level of expertise which places them at the forefront of their respective field in the
digital technology sector. We are not convinced by the evidence provided to reward MC. MC is not

For OC2, the applicants are required to demonstrate proof of recognition for work beyond their
occupation that contributes to the sector’s advancement. Examples may include mentoring as part of a
top-tier accelerator on behalf of a structured programme with selection criteria (with a consistent track
record). It is unclear to see whether the applicant’s mentorship activities are in the digital technology
sector. The evidence provided here is not at a convincing level for OC2. OC2 is not rewarded.

For OC3, applicants must demonstrate a ‘significant contribution’ to the sector. The applicants should
provide evidence here that demonstrates impact. For example, this may be proved with equity or bonus rewards. The applicant should still prove how they contributed to the success. We are convinced by the evidence provided to reward OC3.OC3 is rewarded.

In conclusion, we have assessed all the evidence against the criteria of visa guidelines. In summary, the evidence submitted does not convincingly meet the required level for an Exceptional Talent
Endorsement under the Global Talent Visa route. This application is not endorsed.


1 Like

You can appeal if the assessor made assumptions about the company. How is the media company productled? Sounds like an agency.

Thanks Francisca.

Its not an agency, it is a fully fledged UK company- which even when searched on the UKVI website, the Nature of business (SIC) is stated as ‘entertainment software development’. The company, a startup, creates products like Augmented Reality (AR) lenses and filters sold to big digital media organizations/ platforms.

I provided several links to International press coverage and I think that’s where the problem might have emanated. Some of them referred to the company as ‘X Media’ instead of ‘X Limited’ or just ‘X’ but as we have seen with names, a book is never to be judged by what it’s called especially when it is a brand still building momentum for itself as a household name.

I don’t know if the assessor will choose to insist on their perspective, holding on to the fact that the company also does other things on the side hence, a problem.

For OC2, you can direct their attention to the sections in your evidence that indicates that the mentorship activities are in the digital technology sector

1 Like

Thanks May, I will do that! :blush:

When you say they do other things on the side, what do you means?

Oh I simply meant, like most startups- they have other arms of the business that focus on 3D animation products but they were never presented as part of the evidence- I focused on the AR side that concerns me