Thank Raphael! And for all the work you all do🫶🏾
You’re welcome, and thank you for acknowledging and appreciating it.
1 Like
Is it possible if u can share your application and evidences…
Congratulations @bronze
Hi Bibicot
I havent heard back yet.
Hopefully soon.
Hows it going for you?
hey @rohan_mitra our timelines are quite same, did you hear back anything from the home office ?
Nope, haven’t heard back yet.
Have you heard back?
I also haven’t heard back
I just heard back today
Submitted 22nd May
Forwarded 8th June
Decision 5th July (rejection)
Proforma isn’t convincing, They said all my evidences/awards and media are recognition for a track record in entrepreneurship in many sectors and not only digital technology. They called the biggest broadcasting media in my country an early stage platform. They acknowledged all evidences presented were real and verifiable. “We also considered whether the applicant’s roles themselves evidenced such standing, but the positions held were not sufficiently advanced, specialised, or rapidly attained to imply recognition of that kind for a candidate at this stage. The Mandatory Criterion is not awarded.” Mind you, I applied as an exceptional promise.
Regarding OC1, ‘Financial statements, including a balance sheet, evidence that a business has traded; they do not, of themselves, evidence innovation’. The solution, while addressing a genuine market gap, reflects competent execution of an established model rather than a pioneering or field-advancing contribution, and the traction and adoption evidenced were modest’.
Regarding OC3, the evidence relied upon the same two ventures, supported by the applicant’s own commercial narratives, internal records, a client testimonial, and an employer letter. OC3 was not awarded’.
None of the criteria was awarded and here I am wondering if the accessors even looked at my evidence. If everything I submitted was not evidence enough( internal records, external records, links, screenshots, letters, media, 3rd party evidence etc) so what is evidence enough. I applied as a founder in digital technology. Isn’t a founder also an entrepreneur? Mind you, I didn’t submit payslips because they reject that apparently and my employment letter wasn’t a reference letter, it was embedded in one of my OC3’s. Now I am just here wondering where to start from as regards this proforma. Do you think it’s worth a shot to try a review?
I am suspecting ai usage now to be honest that’s why the ai can’t pick somethings
Here’s the Proforma for the rejection issued to me. I didn’t intend to appeal due to the nature of the feedback, particularly the OC2. But I’ll do so and share the updates from that as well.
Hopefully this helps someone in future.
2 Likes
I think the packaging of the evidence needs to be reestablished and scaled up- just my thoughts.
I wasn’t endorsed. Going through the “5 stages of grief” at the moment. Lol.
1 Like
sorry about that you can appeal though on your document is the decision same date as of when home office sent you the mail
It seems like only some promise are getting endorsed and not even a single talent
Looks like you put in a very strong application, none of this excuses on this proforma says or states why you weren’t endorsed. You should put up a strong appeal, your chances look good
1 Like
Girl, let’s link up, what’s the best way? Is this your IG name?
Sorry for the radio silence, but I wanted to share some reflections on my unsuccessful Global Talent application in case it helps others applying under the Digital Technology route, particularly under Exceptional Promise and with a profile that sits closer to user research/design/digital strategy than software engineering.
For context, I applied under Exceptional Promise with what I would describe as a business/user research profile rather than a deeply technical or engineering one. My background is a UK based PhD in social research, and over the past five years I have moved into user research, digital strategy and digital product-related work across the public sector, consulting and international organisations.
I submitted three main pieces of evidence:
Mandatory: a case related to a digital platform developed with UN-Habitat
Optional 1: a university impact award linked to my PhD research
Optional 2 a digital maturity assessment and roadmap I developed for my current employer
None of my cases were accepted, and the overall feedback pointed to a few things that I think are important for others to consider.
-
Public visibility seems to matter a lot, even under Exceptional Promise
One of the clearest takeaways for me is that public visibility of your work matters significantly, even if you are applying as a junior or emerging professional under Promise rather than Leader. I did submit evidence of recognition, but most of it was internal or stakeholder-based: recommendation letters, internal recognition, institutional validation, and project-level impact. That was not enough. The feedback placed a lot of weight on the absence of things like: speaking at conferences, digital industry awards, media coverage or interviews, independent public recognition of your work, visible professional presence connected to your digital work. My interpretation is that it is not enough for your work to be recognised internally or by clients/stakeholders. They seem to want proof that your work is visible and recognised externally and publicly. -
The route feels heavily oriented towards people who build digital products directly
The second major takeaway is that the Digital Technology route seems much more narrowly focused on digital product development than the guidance initially suggests. My work has been closely related to digital products and services, but often from the perspective of user research, strategy, service design, digital capability or digital governance rather than hands-on product building in the classic sense. My impression from the feedback is that supporting product development is not necessarily enough if your contribution is not seen as central to the actual development of the product itself. This is particularly relevant if, like me, your profile sits in user research, service design, digital strategy, policy or governance work related to digital products rather than in software engineering, product engineering, technical product development, roles that are more obviously “building the product”. -
Referees need to be leaders in digital technology in a very specific sense
I also learned that having strong senior referees is not enough if they are not seen as digital technology leaders in the specific way the assessor expects. My referees were all credible senior people with direct knowledge of my work in digital projects and products. They came from international organisations, the private sector, and the UK public/digital space. However, none of them were accepted as “leaders in the digital technology industry”. My takeaway is that for this route, it may not be enough that someone works on digital programmes, leads digital work inside an organisation, or has seniority in policy, service design, strategy or transformation. They seem to be looking for referees who are clearly and recognisably senior figures in digital product development itself, ideally with a public profile and an obvious connection to the digital technology industry. -
If your background is user research / design, consider very carefully which route you apply under.
This is probably my biggest practical recommendation. If your profile is closer to design, user research, service design, or related digital roles, I would look very carefully at whether the Global Talent Design route (new one) might be a better fit than digital technology, especially if your evidence is stronger around research, design practice, service improvement, product discovery, accessibility, user insight, or design leadership rather than technical product delivery. I’m not saying the Digital Technology route is impossible for user researchers or designers, but based on my experience, it seems much more tailored to people whose work is framed as direct digital product creation and who can evidence that through product metrics, code, traction, commercial growth, public recognition, or clear technical/product leadership.
My application taught me that this route is narrower than it appears on paper. If your work sits adjacent to digital product development rather than squarely inside it, you need to be extremely careful about, how you frame your contribution, how public and externally validated your work is, who your referees are, and whether the route you’re applying under actually matches the kind of digital work you do.
I prefer to share this long format feedback, rather than the pro forma itself, as I think it provides a lot more context linked to my background, that the feedback from TechNation can actually provide. I hope this helps.
All the best with your applications!
5 Likes
Thank you for the honest and detailed feedback. Wishing you the best in future endeavors
2 Likes