I submitted my application for Exceptional Promise on the 14th of July and got a response on the 15th of August with a rejection. I applied as a Digital Marketer with experience in Search Engine Optimisation.
I would like to seek your opinions on how best to approach my appeal. Thank you.
Here is the list of my evidence
LOR
Letter of recommendation from the CEO of a digital advertising company in the United States.
Letter of recommendation from the CEO of an E-commerce company in the United States.
Letter of recommendation from the founder of a Blockchain company in Ycombinator.
MANDATORY CRITERIA
Evidence 1
Letter of recommendation from the Co-Founder of a digital advertising company in the United States recognizing my contributions to the company’s growth and its partners. NB: Same company as above in my LOR but from a different person in the company.
Email from the company welcoming me to the company.
Evidence 2
Google Analytics dashboard showing the number of global organic users acquired for the company above between 2019 - 2022. The total number of users amounted to 533,776 with total pageviews of 1,528,385. NB: These global users were acquired using the websites I built.
Evidence 3
Weekly payment history from 2019 - 2021 from the company above with amounts ranging up to 1,228 USD (1,032 GBP) per week.
OPTIONAL CRITERIA 2
Evidence 1
This evidence showed how my contributions outside of my day-to-day work to an open source Blockchain organization led to the advancement of the field.
Letter of recommendation from the Community and Operations Manager of the open source organization highlighting my contributions.
Screenshots showing my voting contributions to proposals in the organization that led to the education of more blockchain developers.
Leaderboard screenshot highlighting me as taking on Development and Business development roles in the organization.
Evidence 2
Screenshot of a tweet I made to gather people who are interested in learning blockchain technologies
Screenshot of the Discord chats showing the interest group I created (from above) to further the learnings of blockchain.
OPTIONAL CRITERIA 3
Evidence 1
The same letter of recommendation from MC1 highlighting my significant contribution to the number of clicks driven to mobile applications of their company partners. He identified that I played a key role in the continuous work with their partners.
Screenshot showing a total of 640,352 clicks to android and iOS applications of the company partners. A high conversion rate of 21% was achieved.
Evidence 2
This evidence highlighted the number of downloads to mobile applications of each partner with a link to Google drive provided showing overwhelming evidence.
The panel feedback:
The applicant has applied via the Exceptional Promise pathway. The evidence provided is insufficient to meet the requirements for the Global Talent Visa.
Regarding the mandatory criteria, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant has been recognised as a leading talent in the digital technology sector. The applicant has provided the required letters of recommendation, however the letters are brief and vague regarding the applicant’s achievements. The applicant has not demonstrated how he was a leading talent or any industry recognition. The web analytics and payment schedules provided do not demonstrate leading talent.
Optional Criteria 2 requires recognition for work outside of the applicant’s immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the sector. The evidence provided demonstrates the applicant has participated in a [Blockchain organization], and has voted on a proposal. This is not sufficient to fulfill the requirements for OC2.
Optional Criteria 3 requires that the applicant should have made significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product-led digital technology company. The applicant has provided a letter of recommendation from [company] which states the applicant has delivered 600k global clicks over the period 2018-2022. There is no information to support why this is a significant achievement for [company]. Additionally, the applicant is referred to as an affiliate partner, which fails to meet the requirements as an employee of a product led digital technology company.
Therefore, on the basis of the evidence provided, this application for the Global Talent visa cannot be endorsed.
Of the 10 MC examples in the guideline, which ones do the MC evidences you provided match?
For instance, the payment history you provided, did you show how it qualifies as high payment?
Keywords in the letters matter, did the letter illustrate how you actually lead in the company?
I notice that from the feedbacks, it implies that the letters you get didn’t capture the details they expect.
Keywords like leadership… And expressions like he did xxx, and this in turn led to yyy for the company
I suggest you look at your evidences, perhaps some expressions there can still be interpreted to meet TN expectations
You did provide strong evidence to meet the mandatory criteria beside as an affiliate partner it appears you were a consultant. Evidence 2 in your mandatory criteria is better suited for the optional criteria 3. If you have to appeal, point out evidence that were not mentioned and if you think the assessor misunderstood your evidence then state how you meet the criteria using the tech nation guide as a reference point.
I didn’t show how it qualifies as a high payment. Only provided the conversion rate of USD to GBP. I will make sure to include it in my appeal.
The letters did include keywords like “played a key role”, “tremendous achievement” etc. It also highlighted how my results have played a key role in maintaining business relationships with their top partners.
I want to be sure I got your sentence clearly. Did you mean to write “did provide”?
About the affiliate partner/consultant, I have worked as a sole proprietor all these years, and the company is just one of many others my personal business has a relationship with.
Makes me wonder if TN accessed me as an employee of the company or a business applicant.
I will be making an appeal and pointing out the tech nation guide as a reference point. Thank you once again.
I meant you didnt provide strong evidence for the mandatory criteria. Tech Nation guide didn’t make provision for sole proprietors, it could be implied that you are a consultant serving multiple organisations.
I think those statement don’t hit the nail on the head to mean leadership
A team player can have tremendous achievements… That may qualify as impact OC3 and not leadership as in MC
Pls look at the LoRec in your MC evidence 1
Hopefully the narrative in it may be logically translated as Leadership not impact
The MC EV 2 as well is looking like impact too, not leadership.
Given these, does any of the 3 required LoRecs detail how you led and not impact
Maybe you can fall back to that.
I’m afraid if you are not able to distinguish leadership and impact to the assessor in the evidences, it may be hard.
OC2
Is the tweet multiple cases or just one
What are the metrics of the discord group
Could you explain the voting on proposal, is it like normal voting, or you wrote a code about voting
Overall, the challenge I’m seeing here is that all the 3 criteria are flagged.
And I understand that the limit is 200 words for review.
It’s hard to imagine how you would stuff your response to even be 300 words and still be able to convince them on the 3 criteria.
It’d have been relatively easier if you were to defend just one criterion.
You should’ve shared your proposed evidences here on the forum before submission too, perhaps feedbacks here would’ve called your attention to the avoidable mistakes
I always encourage people to ask for a review so they get two opinion of why theory application was not successful or they get tie decision overturned. You lose nothing asking for a review.