[Rejection Help] Stage 1- PM with high revenue- Try to appeal

I had an assessment that I got a strong profile. But I got rejected. I need your help.

MC Judgement:
All three mandatory recommendation letters show multiple signs of templating. We also note that all three signature trails for these letters clearly indicate that the documents originated and were sent from the applicant’s email ID to the respective recommenders. This leads to more questions about the authenticity of the letters rather than demonstrating any exceptional talent. We also note that the first recommender has a background in finance and prior to that in banking, and does not meet the Tech Nation guidelines for being an acknowledged expert in the digital technology world.
In any case, we are unable to see details of how and why the applicant is one of the world’s leading experts at the forefront of her field. We can see that she was part of a team of about 20 people who drafted a national standard, but this isn’t any kind of recognition in her personal capacity. We are unable to see any sustained recognition for the applicant by way of reputed national or international awards. We note the salary details but these alone are not sufficient to not meet the criteria. We note the AI event she spoke at but it was not a keynote and we are unable to see how this has shaped the direction of the AI field. We are unable to award the Mandatory Criteria.

MC Proof:

  1. Reference letter from Industry Expert+ Revenue+ No. of Customers Screenshot from Prospectus
    (but yes in UK IP, the Prospectus online link cannot be accessed. So I uploaded it to google drive. I think it counts as 3rd party evidence. I may need to explain about the Prospectus and why it is 3rd party and official.)

  2. Drafter of AI National Standard- I submit the standards, the certification, and the international fame of the association, background/Google scholar of other drafters. (They said this isn’t any kind of recognition in her personal capacity. However, only AI industry experts can be selected to draft those. I show the background of other drafters and how influential the drafting association is.)

  3. Salary Payslips with comparison (accepted)

  4. Speaking at an online event with over 1000 viewers + reference letters (Their comment: it was not a keynote and we are unable to see how this has shaped the direction of the AI field. Yes, I think this is quite weak evidence compared to others.

  5. Recommendation Letter:
    (My Point: I was trying to answer each of the questions one by one in the paragraph. I don’t know why they treat it as templating. Does anyone have any idea?
    For the Signature problem, I think someone met it before, but not often. I didn’t want to ask the referee to sign up for HelloSign, so I used my email to send out the letter to them.
    For the referee problem, I think the referee has a banking background but spent many years as CFO at Digital Technology CFO already counts her as a top digital technology industry leader.)

All the evidence for the Optional Criteria is self-certified, or in the form of reference letters. Under the visa guidelines these are not suitable by themselves and must be supported by external and third party evidence in order to corroborate the claims. No such evidence has been provided. Further, the applicant has not followed the submission guidelines. There are numerous screenshots that have been cut and pasted onto a single sheet, and there are multiple external links that the assessor is not obliged to access.

OC 1 endorsed:
Regarding OC1, we note the two patents that name her as an author. However, she could have done a
better job of clarifying this as the Google Patent link does not give an English translation of the names
of the authors. Even though the applicant has not provided proof of employment at the 4Paradigm, we
are able to award OC1 to the applicant.

OC 3 Denied:
Regarding OC3, the self-certified documents, reference letters, and associated evidence are not suitable and need to be supported by external evidence. We are also unable to see any confirmation of her employment at XXX. Absent additional evidence we are unable to award OC3.

(I already submitted multiple news and revenue numbers by product and number of clients on the prospectus. Maybe because they cannot open the link of the prospectus. But the prospectus is a 150+ page document, in case they cannot access the link, I added a Google Drive link. Another thing is UK IP address seems to fail to open my previous company website.
The confirmation of my employment is in the salary evidence. Do I have to paste it in each of the criteria evidence?)

Previous post about my background: Recommendation Letter Choice Please help - Stage 1 - UK Tech Nation Visa Forum (tnvisaforum.org)

Overall, I think it is a mix of missing employment letters in OC3, revenue/prospectus link/ official website that cannot be accessed. I don’t know how to organize the screenshot. Maybe another reason is I compiled too many news clippings and screenshots, which made it hard to read.
@Francisca_Chiedu Thanks.

I provide news clips, but the news does not contain my name. I think I need to resize the objective evidence, or maybe ask my previous company to show an official proof of revenue, No. of customers’ statistics if they cannot open the hyperlink? Usually how do people provide revenue numbers as not self-certified?

@mbkuru @alexnk @alex_james Thank you. ps: Can I provide a new hyperlink when appealing?

When you appeal, you will only be able to point out to specific file and paragraph you submitted. External link is usually not followed in the evidence anyway unless it is sometimes used as a prove of authentic information only.

Yes. I provided 2 hyperlinks to prove the revenue number information is authentic, but the 1st hyperlink cannot be accessed as they said. The 2nd hyperlink is a Google Drive link that contains the same information. Maybe I can point to that link and ask the judger to download the Google Drive doc?

:rofl: Can somebody help with this case? Thank you.


Yes, you can do point the reviewer to where you have the link and appeal that they open it to view the document or download. Note that they are not obliged to open the link as it is advised that all submitted documents should be self-sufficient.

That said, there’s an important point that was raised in your review that you need to clarify: that you have self-certified some of the documents and that you have used some kind of template for your letters. This is a strong basis for rejection even if you have a strong profile so you need to speak to this.

Thank you. Sure. I would explain that there is no such template. The referees are looking at the TN guide so they make sure answer each of the questions in order. But content of the letters are very different and tell their story working with me.

For self-certified evidence, I don’t think it is self-certified. I was writing a lot of words to explain the story behind the evidence and reorganized the numbers in my local currency to GBP. That’s it.

For the link, yes I have a screenshot of the webpage with translation. Maybe the problem is some of the screenshots don’t contain the hyperlink itself. That’s my problem though.

Then I believe you have a good case. All the best on your appeal.

Any other comments? I gonna write the appeal on the weekend maybe. I think I kind of misunderstood how the application works. Because the submission is 10 evidence, therefore the narratives need to be around the objective evidence, to articulate why one evidence fulfills the criteria.

I was responsible for NSF funding application and I did US university application before. I was also going through the US NIW/O1/EB1A application. Each is kind of different. In many other talent or funding
application, the applicant’s intention and motivation is important. But this should be reflected in the Personal Statement only.
I got an NIW application doc, I think that doc quite reflects what is evidence application. https://andreychemist.github.io/assets/EB2NIW.pdf

I gonna appeal by the end of the deadline. But if the appeal isn’t successful, I gonna hold the 2nd application for a while. I think working in my field of talent is a bit hard in the UK. I gonna do some job-seeking first and may reconsider this choice.

PS: NHS fee is expensive.

You need to take some time to reflect on the feedback, read tech nation guide and pay attention to addition notes on evidence requirements, the document check list and examples of evidence. You need to put in a tidy application and demonstrate how you meet each of the criteria.

1 Like

Thank you. Apparently they follow the rules line by line. But I haven’t follow these guide very strictly. Do you think I still have a chance to appeal successfully?

I can’t tell but you loose nothing applying