Request for Appeal Review - Exceptional Talent

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some feedback and insights on my appeal strategy. I recently received a rejection for the Exceptional Talent (Digital Technology) route and have drafted my appeal based on correcting what I believe are factual misinterpretations of my evidence.

Below is a summary of my application, followed by the key rejection points and my appeal strategy. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Summary of My Application Evidence:

  • Letters of Recommendation:

    • LoR #1 from a Senior Director at Company A, a Fortune 100 tech company (my former employer).
    • LoR #2 from the Co-founder of Company B, a pioneering tech startup in the Digital Product Passport (DPP) niche (my current employer - I worked here as Integration Lead, and then promoted to Product Manager).
    • LoR #3 from the ex-VP of Product at Company B.

  • Mandatory Criterion (Recognition as a Leader):

    • High Compensation: Contractual proof that my compensation is in the top 10% (90th percentile) for my role in my country of residence.
    • Industry Expert Recognition: A letter from a recognized DPP expert and EU working group member who interviewed me as a “leading expert” for his upcoming book (to be published by Italy’s largest financial media group).

  • Optional Criterion 1 (Innovation):

    • Key Innovation - API Design: Evidence I authored and designed a new API that, for the first time, allowed for the large-scale, automated generation of DPPs from complex external systems.
    • Client Validation: A letter from a Senior Project Manager at a leading global chemical company validating my leadership and the success of my API in their proof-of-concept.
    • Product Innovation: Proof I designed and delivered a product module that resulted in a 90% reduction in manual data entry, which is now a key KPI in sales materials (which I also attached).

  • Optional Criterion 3 (Significant Contribution):

    • Industry-First Project: A letter from the VP of R&D at a global leader in the apparel industry confirming I led a project that “redefined transparency standards in the industry.”
    • Third-Party Media Coverage: An article in a leading industry magazine highlighting the significance of the project with the apparel industry leader.
    • Description of the project: A document describing the content of the above project, which is also publicly available online.

This is the reason for the rejection:

Regarding their overall professional history and references, the applicant has demonstrated niche domain knowledge in supply chain technologies, which is noted. However, their career is far too nascent for the Exceptional Talent pathway. The letters of recommendation from their time at Company A and B describe work that is standard for their experience level and position but do not provide evidence of pioneering contributions or sustained recognition that would mark them as a leader in the field.

Regarding the Mandatory Criterion, the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient recognition as a leader. Being interviewed as an expert for a forthcoming book by *** is respected, but it does not meet the high bar for national or international recognition of their own work.

Furthermore, the compensation evidence, based on a freelance daily rate at Company B, is not considered high, particularly for a contractor, and does not support the claim of being a leading talent. Regarding the Optional Criteria, the evidence was insufficient to meet the requirements of any two criteria. In relation to OC1, the applicant’s work at Company B, such as designing the customer-facing API and the “Automations” module, is not eligible for consideration as it was performed as a contractor, not an employee.

Even if it were eligible, the evidence only demonstrates participation in company projects, not a track record of genuine, field-advancing innovation. In relation to OC3, the contributions made whilst an employee at Company A are eligible, however, the evidence does not validate a significant impact on Company A itself. The impact described is on Company A’s clients, which are often not product-led digital technology companies. The work for Company B with clients like *** (leading apparel company) is ineligible, both due to the applicant’s contractor status and because *** (leading apparel company) is not a product-led digital technology company.

I have added my appeal in the comments, I would appreciate your help and review a lot!!

Thanks in advance

3

Hi @silvia sorry about the outcome!

Providing constructive feedback on a rejection without reviewing the original application is highly challenging, if not impractical, and unfair to the applicant. The assessment of an application and any subsequent appeal is based on the quality and content of the submission. Application outline titles alone do not provide sufficient information to accurately match with the feedback received from TN. For example, the feedback raises flag on the quality of letters qualifying them as limited to standard work for this role without specifying industry recognition. There’s no way to validate the quality of letters without reading them.

For an appeal response or guidance, understanding the specifics of the application in relation to the feedback is crucial. Without access to the full application and the specific feedback, any guidance provided would be speculative.

If you are seeking detailed advice on how to improve or appeal a decision, please consult with an expert who can review the application in its entirety and provide tailored guidance. If you are looking for a professional review, feel free to DM or reach out on LinkedIn.

1 Like
4

Hi pahuja,

Thanks for your answer. I understand your point. However I saw many people requesting for reviews based on their summary, so I was hoping to still get some advice. I think their main reason for rejection is that they saw that I have a freelancing contract, so I am mainly looking for help based on other people that faced the same issue (i.e. working full time for a company as a regular employee but with a freelance contract due to tax and legal issues)

5

There are a few concerns raised as per the feedback (assuming they are accurate) beyond contractor work as the feedback says “even if contractor work were to be eligible”:

  1. Letters describing standard work but nothing industry worth
  2. No national/internally recognized work in the industry. Interviewed for one book hasn’t been enough.
  3. Evidences demonstrating being part of projects but not significant personally driven innovation.
  4. Lack of work or client work at product-led digital tech companies
  5. Impact not considered significant

If your application has demonstrated evidence towards this (can’t be gauged without seeing application itself) then you should draft the appeal inline with the guideline terminologies and show how they meet the criteria and address the concerns raised.

1 Like
6

Thanks for your feedback @pahuja! I have the impression that they did not read in detail my evidences after finding out about the freelancing contract because I believe all these points are addressed in my application. I will make sure to point them out in the appeal

7

Hey guys, I would appreciate your expert feedback a lot :pray: @Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi @Maya @Raphael @Gbemiga_Adelola

8

I deleted my initial comment and resummarised the content of my appeal so that it is more concise and easier to read:

. On My Overall Career (Rejection: “Too nascent” and “standard contributions”)

  • The Rejection: The assessor concluded my career is too new for Exceptional Talent and that my work was standard for my level, not pioneering.
  • My Appeal:
    • I argue my career shows a rapid, high-impact trajectory, moving from a “Top Talent” at a global tech leader to the sole Product Manager at a pioneering deep tech startup.
    • I counter the “not pioneering” claim with direct evidence of leading industry-first projects: one that “redefined transparency standards” in the apparel industry (as stated by the VP of R&D of the apparel company) and another that achieved a pioneering technical first for a global chemical company (as stated by the Sr Project Manager of a global leader in the chemical sector).
    • I also argue that being the sole product leader for an innovative technology like Digital Product Passports (DPPs) is an inherently pioneering role.

2. On the Mandatory Criterion (Rejection: Insufficient recognition and low salary)

  • The Rejection: An interview with an expert was not considered sufficient recognition, and my freelance salary was deemed too low.
  • My Appeal:
    • I clarify that the expert is a highly credible EU working group member who recognized my work as an “industry benchmark,” a clear form of international recognition and that his book has been published by Italy’s lead financial publisher.
    • I provide objective market data showing my salary is in the top 10% (90th percentile) for my role and country (G7 economy), a strong indicator of a leading talent.
    • I support these with evidence of direct client recognition of my “exceptional talent” and internal recognition as a “Top Talent” at a Fortune 100 company (Company A) as stated in the LoR #1.

3. On Optional Criterion 1 - Innovation (Rejection: Ineligible as a contractor; work was “participation”)

  • The Rejection: My work was disqualified due to my freelance contract. Even if eligible, it was considered mere participation.
  • My Appeal:
    • I explain my freelance status is a standard administrative arrangement for cross-border remote work and that my role is fully integrated, proven by my promotion to sole Product Manager as demonstrated in LoRs 2 and 3.
    • I provide evidence of three high-impact innovations I led: enabling the “first open-source data space” in an EU project (proved in LoR #2), a technical breakthrough allowing a client to generate DPPs automatically for the first time (confirmed by the customer in a letter), and delivering a module that caused a 90% reduction in manual data entry (confirmed in LoR #2).

4. On Optional Criterion 3 - Significant Contribution (Rejection: Misinterpreted impact and eligibility)

  • The Rejection: My impact at my first employer was on clients, not the company itself. My work at my second employer was ineligible due to my contractor status and because the client was not a tech company.
  • My Appeal:
    • I clarify that for B2B tech companies, client success (securing enterprise deals) is a direct commercial contribution to the company. My work also contributed directly to my employer’s intellectual property as reusable assets.
    • I correct the misapplication of the rule: the criterion applies to the applicant’s employer being a product-led tech company, not the client’s industry.
    • I demonstrate that my project was transformative for my employer (first commercial deployment for Company B, opened a new industry vertical) and a significant advancement for the entire DPP sector.
9

Looking at your rejection feedback, the main issue isn’t actually your freelance contract - it’s how your evidence was presented and the assessors’ interpretation of your impact. I’ve seen similar cases where freelance status was initially flagged but successfully addressed in appeals.

Your strongest argument is clarifying that freelance arrangements are standard for cross-border remote work, especially in tech. The key is demonstrating full integration through your promotion to sole Product Manager and the recognition in your reference letters. Focus your appeal on proving this wasn’t contractor work but a standard employment arrangement with tax optimization benefits.

The assessors seem to have stopped reading thoroughly after seeing “freelance contract” in your documents. Your appeal should address their specific concerns about pioneering contributions by highlighting the industry-first projects you led. The VP of R&D stating you “redefined transparency standards” and the chemical company confirming your technical breakthrough are strong third-party validations that counter their “standard work” assessment.

Don’t let this rejection discourage you - the feedback suggests you have solid evidence that was misinterpreted rather than insufficient. I’ve guided applicants through similar appeals where contractor status was initially problematic but ultimately resolved through better evidence presentation and clearer explanations of the working relationship dynamics.

3 Likes
10

Thank you so much Akash for taking the time to review my post. I will make sure to embed your advice in my appeal. Your feedback really gives me hope, fingers crossed!