Just received feedback from the re-submitted application with the reference letters that were not provided in the 1st application, and this time it was a total rejection on all criteria’s including the previously accepted.
I already told you, you can’t add new evidence in your review. Just take the feedback from both panel and strengthen your next application. All the best!
Oh dear. What’s the feedback?
The applicant has applied for Optional Criteria 1 & 3 (OC1 & OC3).
The applicant fails to meet the requirements of the Mandatory Criteria (MC) because the evidence
provided fails to demonstrate extraordinary ability by sustained national or international recognition. The
individual is not able to demonstrate a level of expertise which places them at the forefront of their
respective field in the digital technology sector. Whilst the applicant is highly regarded by their former
employers, there is not enough evidence to show that the applicant is truly considered a leader in their
field, more evidence is required to justify that recognition goes further than the places they have
previously worked.
The applicant fails to meet the requirements of OC1 because the evidence provided fails to
demonstrate that the applicant has a proven track record or examples of innovation in the digital
technology sector as a founder or senior executive of a product-led digital technology company or an
employee working in a new digital field or concept. Whilst the evidence provided displays the complexity
of the projects the applicant has worked on at company1 and company2 for example, it is hard to discern true
innovation in these examples, instead the applicant seems well verse in the use of off the shelf tools
and is able to configure these into a solid data architecture.
The applicant fails to meet the requirements of OC3 because the evidence provided fails to
demonstrate the level of impact the applicant has had as it relates to having made a significant
technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contribution to the field as a founder, senior executive or
employee of a product-led digital technology company. The nature of the applicant’s employment, for
the most part as a third party solution provided (company3/company4) to other companies or non product led
tech companies (company1/company2/company3) makes it difficult to understand actual commercial
impact from the applicant’s endeavours. It is also difficult to understand the level at which the applicant
operated and the degree to which they led the team versus was a team member on the projects of
which they were a part.
On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application.
comparing your initial application and your recent, what I head loudly, is missing leadership evidence. They require external validation of your leadership contribution. You have to arm yourself with both feedback and point them to what you think they is missing.
Thanks, any samples for external validation of leadership contribution?
what was your leadership evidence
This was the content of the 2nd application, bearing in mind that the accepted EV’s for MC and OC3 of the 1st application were also included:
3 Letters of recommendation (2 CIO’s and 1 Snr Product Owner/BA)
3 Reference letters from direct line managers, some of them have moved on to senior roles in other companies validating my work for OC1 (President, Snr Director, and Director)
MC
1 - Employment contract with salary information including any bonus and equity options and history of earnings from Company 1, and a screenshot of a statement from my line manager - Supporting Evidence 2.
2 - Published online material of a solution I led the development and implementation with Company 6, and my acceptance to speak at a world-renowned technical event - Supporting Evidence 7.
3 - Screenshot of my presentation at the technical event that is uploaded with more than 800 views - Supporting Evidence - 8
4 - Letter of Recommendation - 1
5 - Screenshots of 3 previous employment contracts.
OC1
1 - Employment contract with salary information, Github contributions, reference letter from my previous line manager, and the data and analytics solution architecture for the product I led the development at Company 2 - Supporting Evidence 3.
2 - Screenshot of ETL architecture, data flow architecture, the data model of the product I designed, reference letter, and Employment contract with salary information including any bonus and equity options and history of earnings from Company 3- Supporting Evidence 9 and 4.
3 - Screenshot of data solution architecture, data flow architecture, data model, reference letter, and Employment contract with salary information including any bonus from Company 4 - Supporting Evidence 5.
4 - Letter of Recommendation - 2
5 - Screenshot of data model I designed for Company 5 - Supporting Evidence 6
OC 2
1 - Employment contract with salary information and screenshots of online publications, data architecture, and my Github contribution to a project and python code for Company 5 - Supporting Evidence 1.
2 - Letter of recommendation 3
3 - Page 3 of Supporting Evidence 3 of my contribution to Company 2 where the impact of the design increased data availability by xx%
4 - Page 3 of Supporting Evidence 5 of my contribution at Company 4 where the impact of design improved the accuracy by xx% and increased customer retention by xx%.
5 - Page 3 of Supporting Evidence 9 of my contribution at Company 3 where my design increased data integrity by xx%.
Hi @J11 ,
So sorry to see you were not endorsed.
It sounds like most of your evidence pointed to your day-to-day work. I feel some additional evidence of your contribution to your local tech ecosystem may have been useful.
As regards your day-to-day work, it was also not clear to the assessors that you were in fact the “key player” in your tech team. Some evidence showing that you were not just a “mere team member” may have been useful.
Yes, it is possible for 2 different sets of assessors to draw different conclusions from the same set of documents. The endorsement process is not an exact science. Also, a simple document added or removed could change the narrative one way or the other. You do have an opportunity in an endorsement review to provide additional context to the document you provided.
In all, it may not be that you do not qualify for the visa. It may simply be the way you are projecting yourself by way of the documentary evidence you have (and have not) submitted.
It could also be that you do not yet qualify for the visa. If this is the case, you can also spend some more time putting in more work and reapply in the future.
Wishing you the very best.
ps: This is not immigration or legal advice; simply my opinion.
2 Likes