At this point , we don’t even know what to expect 'cos people that applied within the same period have gotten both endorsement and rejection emails . The usual permutation and combination ain’t working .
yup first i was analyzing that the endorsment/rejections comes as batch and in order but the trend changed. analyzing the cases on forum it doesnot matter when did you referred its as simple as it is whenever case solves they reply.
1 Like
Anyone who appealed got endorsed recently?
No news yet. Anyone with timelines of appeal?
Can anyone tell me how many people have actually got endorsed for talent ( confirmed) in the last 2-3 months? All I see are rejections.
Here are some successful applicants on the forum who mentioned their results in 2026.
Jan 12 → Feb 26 
Endorsed (Promise, Inside UK)
Jan 21 → Feb 26 Endorsed (Promise - applied for Talent, Outside UK)
Jan 31 → Mar 14 Endorsed (Talent, Inside UK)
Feb 1 → Mar 17 Endorsed (Promise, location not specified)
Feb 12 → Mar 31 Endorsed (Promise, Outside UK)
4 Likes
Sorry to hear about that. Can you provide the context of your proforma?
Only one talent? Wow
I’m not sure I agree with the suggestion that “experts” are simply milking money off people. This forum is a volunteer-led alumni support space where people share their experiences and offer guidance at no cost. If someone chooses to go outside this community and pay for advice, that is a personal decision based on who they decide to trust. It’s not fair to make general statements implying that everyone providing support here is financially motivated.
It’s also worth pointing out that some volunteers are contacted privately by individuals seeking paid help, and then those same individuals return to the forum to complain when outcomes aren’t positive. That’s not a fair reflection of the purpose of this space.
That said, I do agree that the bar for Tech Nation endorsements has clearly been raised. There seems to be a growing disconnect between what is outlined in the official guidance and how applications are currently being assessed. Given that applicants are paying a £561 endorsement fee, there should be more transparency and alignment with published criteria.
I think a more productive approach would be for applicants to formally raise concerns with the Home Office. You can contact the Global Talent endorsement team and request the official complaints procedure, there is a designated channel for endorsement-related issues. Submitting a formal complaint through the proper process ensures your concerns are recorded and considered. If enough structured feedback is provided, it increases the likelihood that the guidance will be updated to reflect current expectations. Historically, the Home Office has aimed for transparency in its visa processes, so this is something that should be addressed.
I also used to spend time responding to requests to review evidence, but in many cases the list being shared simply do not meet current expectations. If you are mirroring evidence from friends who were endorsed in early 2025 or in previous years, you are likely to be disappointed.
Tech Nation clearly appears to have new assessors who are endorsing applicants they genuinely consider exceptional, not those who have simply worked towards ticking application criteria, but individuals who are already well established and recognised in their field, or who demonstrate clear potential to reach that level. These assessors seem to be looking beyond passive or self-submitted evidence, focusing instead on what is independently documented about you over time, your online presence, industry recognition, and broader credibility as a respected leader. Until your profile reflects that level of validation, the process may feel more like a gamble.
It’s also important to acknowledge that increased scrutiny may partly be a response to a rise in fraudulent or low-quality applications. From what I’ve seen, successful applications now rely heavily on strong, externally verifiable evidence. It’s no longer enough to simply “tick the boxes” with internal or self-authored documents, your public profile and recognition need to clearly support your claims of being a leader or potential leader.
Working in tech alone doesn’t automatically qualify someone as a leader. Without sustained recognition and impact over time, even well-prepared evidence may fall short under current standards.
For those relying on examples from previous years, it’s important to recognise that expectations have shifted. What worked in early 2025 or before may no longer be sufficient today. Until Tech Nation clearly updates its guidance to reflect current assessment standards, applicants will continue to face uncertainty and should approach the process with that in mind.
I hope this helps clarify the situation.
@kontrol @Rachel @Arslan_Ahmed @Larry0901 @premfort @tobiakinlade
8 Likes
@Francisca_Chiedu I have not raised any concerns about providing consulting services in/out of forum. I just raised concerns about stale advice which is hurting thousands of people who view a certain advice or evidence set and think - I can get it.
All I asked for is transparency. Maybe what we need is new volunteers who have been endorsed recently to share so that we know what is needed now.
Only 1 person has reported endorsement in talent category in last 3 months.
I do agree that what worked for you might not work for applicants now. They need to know what works now.
1 Like
Hi @kontrol
Adding to what @Francisca_Chiedu has already summarised:
1. Less than 5% of total Tech Nation applicants post on this forum, whether for advice, outcomes, or rejections. Seeing one person report something does not mean they are the only one. It is neither representative of all applicants nor even of everyone active here.
2. This is an open forum where contributors like @Francisca_Chiedu have been helping for years, and others join over time. Volunteers choose to spend their time reviewing applications and sharing detailed feedback after endorsement - however it’s a choice. If there’s are no new volunteers from latest endorsement it reflects their personal choice to contribute or not to others journeys. There is no formal enrolment or training process. No one controls who contributes, and no one has insight into how Tech Nation evolves its assessment criteria - they haven’t officially shared those insights to the outside world yet.
3. Many volunteers here, including those who also offer professional services, fairly highlight both strengths and gaps in an applicant’s profile before any engagement. These gaps cannot be addressed by any consultant unless the applicant provides strong evidence. After this evaluation, it is the applicant’s decision whether to proceed, take the risk, or work with a consultant. In most cases, rejections are not a surprise when applicants are clearly aware of their gaps upfront. Many still choose to apply, given the inherent subjectivity in Tech Nation assessments, which is also true for other premium visas like the O1.
5 Likes
Thank you for the effort @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu
1 Like
Let me reiterate, I have not once tried to undermine your or other’s work.
If only a few percentage share here, that was true even two years back. That fundamentally doesn’t explain what we are seeing here.
All I am saying is that we need more data. You mentioned O1. They are extremely transparent in terms of approval rate, AAO cases with clear ways you could challenge.
My question is about the undeniable fact that something has changed. And that we need more data. And that what worked before won’t work now. And that experts need to also acknowledge that.
1 Like
@kontrol we acknowledge that and it’s clearly mentioned above in our responses.
Please share the feedback with TN for more public clarity on their assessment and the changes they have made. That’s the only official body for sharing updates.
Until they share anything publicly, everyone including volunteers consultants and applicants will continue to follow their last defined processes - we can identify trends from outside and share those with applicants but nothing more as we don’t have access to those changes as well. Applicants can either wait to apply or apply basis the last updated information. Unless there’s another official update from TN acknowledgement of just the change doesn’t make any real difference.
It does change mathematically by the way because the application volumes have increased significantly too over last two years while the endorsements have reduced. Hence the actual numbers change. And we the trend of applicants posting on this forum hasn’t follow the same pattern.
Frankly none of the volunteers here is looking for a pat on the back. We have been contributing time and effort despite anything. However to your point of you need more new volunteers who have gotten endorsed recently, it’s out of control of anyone here as it’s a choice. If people aren’t making that choice, that doesn’t mean the existing volunteers here are not adding value. Applicants have their discretion too to not take guidance here and look for new endorsed people themselves through different channels without relying on this forum.
And no O1 also has subjectivity - I know this with surety as I have been working on those applications with another highly experienced O1 lawyer.
1 Like
Hello everyone,
Please, let’s all take a moment to relax. We are all part of the same family here, so let’s not let disagreements get the best of us. I kindly request that we bring this conversation to a peaceful close and move forward with mutual respect.
Thank you for understanding, and let’s continue to support one another as a community.
I understand your point, and I don’t disagree that stale advice can be an issue especially when people rely on past examples and assume the same approach will still work today. That’s a valid concern.
At the same time, I think it’s important to recognise that volunteers here are not just sharing static or outdated information. A lot of what is shared is based on evolving trends both from feedback within the community and from broader signals, including what Tech Nation communicates to alumni ambassadors about their current approach. From what many of us are seeing, there is now a much stronger emphasis on external validation independent, verifiable evidence that supports your claims over time, rather than relying mainly on internally generated or self-authored documents.
So while I agree that what worked before may not work now, it’s not necessarily that the advice is entirely stale, it’s that the bar has shifted, and the interpretation of evidence has become stricter and more focused on credibility and recognition.
I also agree with you that having more recently endorsed applicants share their experiences would be helpful. That kind of up-to-date insight can complement what volunteers are already observing and help applicants better understand the current expectations.
That said, I still think the core issue is transparency. Relying on forum trends and anecdotal evidence isn’t ideal for something as important as this. That’s why I suggested a more structured approach raising this formally with the Home Office and requesting updated Global Talent guidance. If the official documentation reflects current assessment criteria, it reduces confusion and ensures applicants aren’t relying on outdated interpretations.
In the meantime, the safest approach for applicants is to go beyond “ticking boxes” and focus on strong, externally validated evidence that clearly demonstrates recognition and impact. That seems to be the consistent direction things are moving in.
1 Like
lol emotions are just high. i got rejected too, it sucks but its not the end of the world. we either move on or give a better try next time.
1 Like
Time for some sanity back in the group 
As someone who was endorsed recently. I have benefited a lot with content shared by experts. I did not pay anything for all that insight.
Having said that, being senior members and alumni @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu , please continue sharing your expertise- including new guidelines so it helps maximum people.
Kontrol: Buddy, you raise a valid point. And I understand your frustration. Could have done a better job to express it.
3 Likes
That’s the spirit. Even in previous years, it took some people 3-4 attempts to get endorsed.
1 Like
Reading your post and seeing despite being endorsed of late, you’ve not even for once tried to either share roughly your strategy, format or something to Atleast give back to what might have worked for you. Most of the inputs and contents you read were others sharing their strategies and getting advice, or others sharing their proforma and getting further help on how to approach things. But in the end we all have a choice of what to do.
2 Likes