Got rejection mail yesterday.Assessment panel feedback:
The candidate has applied for the Global Talent Visa (GTV) through the Exceptional Talent (ET)
pathway. While all evidence has been reviewed, not all may be commented on. After careful review, it is
the opinion of the assessor that the candidate does not meet any criteria for endorsement.
The candidate has attempted on occasion to consolidate multiple pages and multiple pieces of evidence
into one file. Tech Nation guidelines are clear that each piece of evidence is unique and should example
one material point and that each page should be legible and natural. Where these breaches are
excessive, we have only reviewed the first three natural and legible pages in each piece of evidence, as
per Tech Nation guidelines.
Regarding their mandatory references, they speak highly of the candidate’s testing & QA work. While
complimentary, they do not go as far as detailing someone with significant national/international acclaim
ot one who has pioneered new innovations that advance a technology field. We would also not consider
all referees to be qualified - they are not all established technology leaders in their own right.
Regarding their roles and positions over the past 5 years, there are no meaningfully advanced
accountabilities or skills relative to their peer group and experience level. It is not suggestive of a
candidate of merit.
Regarding their specific examples in support of Mandatory Criteria (MC), their additional support letters
are noted but only detail work typical of their role/position. The Prathidhwani Job portal is not field-
advancing either, nor is media coverage relevant to the candidate as the candidate is not
mentioned/recognised. The description of work at Equifax, again, appears typical for their peer group.
Internal recognition is respected but not an example of national/international acclaim. MC is not met.
Regarding Optional Criteria 2, regarding Masscom, we lack information to qualify whether the program
meets criteria. While we respect their support letter detailing the mentor’s criteria, there is no evidence
or reputation that this program advances any technology field. It appears to be basic tech training.
Women Who Code is an applauded program, but there is no reputation to the innovation of new
technologies. OC2 is not met.
Regarding Optional Criteria 3, we appreciate the provided context from the candidate regarding their
self-reported achievements. But Allianz is not a product-led technology company. We also cannot use
emails as a valid form of evidence as there is no material way to verify their contents. OC3 is not met.
On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application.
@Francisca_Chiedu could you please help me to apply for a review
Looks like you had a lot of self-authorship without strong supporting evidences. However if you did, you should definitely appeal
Thanks @pahuja ,if I reapply how could I structure the 10 evidences . One evidence file should contain max 3 pages.I have one recommendation letter and other 5 evidence for each criteria. In my current case, I create a landscape view of multiple evidences but page limit was 3 0nly
You need to work on structuring and reorganizing in a planned manner and limit self-authorship. Use more third-party evidence to back your claims to meet the criteria. Use professional concise language. There are many ways - hard to comment deeply without seeing actual documentation though where your space is going so much. All applicants work with the same word limits. Feel free to reach out on linkedin for any detailed reviews.
Thank you so much @pahuja
Based on the feedback, your evidence needs clearer organization. Use separate documents for each achievement. Focus on specific technical innovations, not combined files. Use verified examples from outside your company, not internal awards. Show how your work advanced the field beyond normal job tasks.
Get reference letters from respected tech experts. They should describe your unique innovations with real results. Choose referees from product-focused companies, not service-based ones. Their letters must explain how your work changed technology practices.
Highlight projects where you created new solutions that improved systems. Use official project reports instead of emails. Connect your work to the company’s main tech products. Focus on proven results that show you’re different from others in your field.