So, basically, the first issue is that there seems to be a mismatch on the dates on my Linkedin compared to what’s on my CV.
Secondly, one of my referees seems to have left the company in which he provided my letter using the company’s letterhead.
See below the summary feedback:
The applicant does not meet the requirements of the Mandatory Criteria (MC) because the evidence provided does not clearly demonstrate the career history. It is unclear from the evidence of the current role with either company 1 or company 2. It is also unclear the start date with company 1 (2017 within the application form versus 2019 from the URL provided for LinkedIn).
The second referee also appears to have left XYZ in August 2021 from the LinkedIn URL provided and therefore it is unclear from the documented evidence in what capacity the reference is provided as it is letter headed.
I need suggestions on how to go about my appeal.
NB: I’ve just updated my LinkedIn to match the information on my submitted cv.
I’d appreciate your feedback.
This is tricky. Updating you linkedin now is like introducing new evidence. Do you have explanation why there is a mismatch on you CV? For your referee can you explain why the Linkedin suggests other wise. if you have a good explanation for the inconsistencies in the dates then you may be able to convince an assessor.
For the inconsistency, the explanation is that my very first role in 2017 was actually captured on LinkedIn but was at the bottom of the page (hence you need to click on the see more button on LinkedIn to be able to see it because it’s disconnected from my recent thread of roles in the same company).
And for my referee, I’ve reached out to him to ask for any explanation he may have but he’s yet to respond.
I’m now a bit confused on how to capture this on my appeal, should I want to quickly do that.
Otherwise, I’m looking at doing a reapplication by replacing that referee and correcting the dates and roles inconsistencies.
if it was captured then why did you update your Linkedin? I would left the Linkedin profile as it is and give an explanation that my most recent role was captured at the top. As for your referee it is possible he left and came back to the company and yet to update his linkedin profile. He may also have left an a management role but still on the board of the company. check the website of the company to see if he is still listed there or any online evidence that confirms you claim. Did you pass both optional criteria?
I agree I shouldn’t have updated my LinkedIn. Perhaps the assessors may consider it an honest error
As per the referee, I’ve reached out to see if there’s an explanation for his profile on Linkedin, hopefully, it falls within any of your 2 assumptions above. And I couldn’t find any online evidence good enough.
Yes, I passed both of my criteria (1 and 3 for innovation and impact respectively).
What did you submit for the mandatory criteria?
did you apply for talent or promise? I think this sufficient for both. yu no need to address the issues raised with your referee. You linked in issue could be negligible as people sometimes make a mistake with dates.
I actually applied for promised considering that my career started in 2017. I’d draft a response tomorrow to plead that my errors be forgiven. I’m hoping that my referee gives me something solid to work with.
Thanks for walking with me on this Francisca.
a review is not for you to plead. Just state that it was at te button of your Linkedin as you suggested earlier, state if that if the assessor clicked see more, they would have noticed you joined in 2017. my concern is the point noted on your referee. Happy to help.
My Referee has finally responded.
According to him, he stopped being the country manager in Aug. 2021 but now functions as a non-executive director at the company. I just sent you a message containing my appeal draft. I’d appreciate it if you can help me look at it.
ok, makes sense. is there any verifiable evidence that he is now a Non-Executive director
@4rmSlum2uk have you been able to re-apply or appeal ?
Yes, I did appeal but was rejected again but this time, they pointed to another reason for why my application was rejected.
I still believe I should reapply though. Maybe with the help of an agent this time.
so sorry to hear that @4rmSlum2uk
what else did they point?
why dont you share your evidences in here, revisit the Tech Nation Guide and maybe that would help!
Sorry to hear you application was rejected twice.
Sorry for the appeal rejection.
double clicking on this @4rmSlum2uk what did they point as part of the second rejection?
Please I’ll need help on how to tackle this feedback
Below is the feedback I got for denial
Assessment panel feedback:
The candidate has applied for the Global Talent visa through the Exceptional Promise pathway, electing to evidence meeting Optional Criteria 2 (OC2) and Optional Criteria 3 (OC3).
The candidate meets the requirements for mandatory criteria by providing sufficient evidence of media coverage and good examples of recognition for their startups ,These are typical examples and good examples of an emerging leader of their field -
particularly as the candidate is the technical cofounder in each case.
However, it is regrettable that the candidate appears to have not followed the Tech Nation visa guidelines regarding their two Optional Criteria and thus does not qualify for OC2 or OC3.
For example, to meet the requirements for Optional Criteria 2, the candidate must provide examples of significant contributions to their field outside of their occupation. The candidate’s examples provided are in service to their own start ups therefore cannot be considered outside of their occupation. The one example that does not seem to be within their occupation - contributions to helping individuals understanding the smart contract ecosystem as a medium article and youtube video - are commonplace and do not advance the field and show no evidence of engagement from the Medium or Youtube community.
Additionally, for Optional Criteria 3, the candidate has not provided evidence of impact while being a founder or employee of the product led digital technology company. The examples are disqualified as the candidate is a contractor (as specified in LinkedIn). For the two qualifying organisation. no suitable evidence of impact has been provided.
On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application.