Yeah I feel you …thank you 
Guys -I GOT REJECTED
Looks like the assessor used ChatGPT to generate my review
Assessment panel feedback:
The candidate has applied with optional criteria 2 and 3 (work outside occupation and impact). The
candidate has not provided sufficient information to be endorsed for exceptional promise.
The candidate has not shown she has been recognised as having the potential to be a leading talent in
the digital technology sector in the last five years. The candidate has shared letters of reference,
information on her remuneration and speaking at events. These show someone who is well regarded as
a colleague, but neither the speaking of salary is at a scale which could be considered to be
exceptional, with her speaking engagements not fulfilling the requirements for audience size. The
candidate's letters of reference, whilst complimentary, do suggest she is someone leading the
development of a product or business but contributing. Overall, the candidate has not shown
extraordinary ability by national or international recognition or demonstrated a level of expertise that
places her at the forefront of her respective field in the digital technology sector.
The candidate has not demonstrated recognition for work beyond the applicant’s occupation that
contributes to the advancement of the field. The candidate has reference information on her
volunteering for ****** and ****** as well as a meet up called ******. The mentoring elements of
this work whilst laudable do not show the required structure and selection per the guidance. Speaking at
small meet ups do show contributions that advance the field without significantly more externally verified
information on the impact.
The candidate has not shown significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the
field as an employee of a product-led digital technology company. The candidate has provided evidence
on ******, ******.io, ******.Africa and ******, but much of this is not legible due to the size of the
screenshots. Many of the letters talk about impact, but in terms of percentages, which are not useful
without further data. Finally, it is not clear from the evidence what is the candidate's work versus
a broader team.
@Francisca_Chiedu
Please can you help…?
…I think i need to appeal this is not nice
Oh shoot. So sorry to hear this😟
Appeal will be the next step if you are not satisfied with the reviewers’ feedback.
@Francisca_Chiedu Please help out Mide here if you can🙏
1 Like
3rd edit; 28th May…
Fingers crossed
Thank You…i appreciate it…
i dont mind getting an immigration lawyers review for an appeal …anyone?
Can you list the evidence you submitted for your application.
It appears your reference letters were not compelling but let’s see the list of evidence.
1 Like
4th edit - May 29th
Looks like I might be getting my feedback this week -heartbeats
Finger’s crossed 
Soon yeah
1 Like
Bad luck Mide, all the best for appeal or next application. I have the following edit history
6th May 2024 Submitted
08 May 2024 1.30 (BST)
20 May 2024 16.43 (BST)
21 May 2024 10.38 (BST)
21 May 2024 18:05 (BST)
And then nothing. Does anyone know email from which they received response and did it land in spam or other folder, if at all.
Kundan
Can someone please review my application? I really appreciated it! Please review my evidence: Entrepreneurship, Technical Background Product Manager - #8 by snailxu
@Mide I think you muddled too many things in your evidence which likely weakened the quality of your application and confused the assessor.
In appealing the decision, you need to take your time to explain the quality of your evidence and how it shows you have been recognised as a leader…
Mandatory criteria:
-
Proof of speaking at high profile event. What makes this event high profile, how long has this event been running? Is it a one-off event with no digital footprint print? How is it a sector leading event. In your appeal you want to demonstrate that this is a high profile event by showing that it is an annual event with sectoral leaders in attendance and demonstrate why you where asked to speak. I think the assessor wasn’t convinced on the quality of the event so your appeal should clarify this and provide more context on why you where asked to speak and point them to evidence you provided that were not taken in account.
-
High salary is not really a strong evidence as anyone could claim they earn as much. In this case you want to demonstrate that the salary is high when compared to the average earnings in your home country.
-
Evidence 3 and 4 are the same thing, I don’t get why you split them into two separate evidence. You could have added evidence 4 to three and state that in addition to the letters you have provided evidence of your contribution. In your appeal you want to explain that you provided a reference letter from an executive and further evidence to show your recognition as a leader using your presentation. Again the quality and profile of the event should be explained,
OC2
-
You need to demonstrate that this is also a recognised event with significant attendance. Where there at least 100 people at the event. You can use the tech nation guide where it describes the standard required from a talk. Also explain how this talk has advanced the sector.
-
Explain that you have advanced the sector through your participation in talks and you are recognised as an expert in the subject area and you have demonstrated this through your being consistently invited to speak. Hopefully this events appear credible with enough information online to show they are sector leading events. I note that the events are small meet up, what is your proof that there are over 100 people in attendance? Besides, I have looked up designherhub and axis and can’t find any online footprint that may suggest it is not a high profile or structured programme. If you have that information, explain it in the review.
OC3.
The first evidence sounds like it is mostly self authored. Is your employment letter same as what you referenced in MC? If that’s the case you didn’t use unique evidence in both MC and OC3. The first evidence is obviously weak.
The letter doesn’t sound like you made an impact. The letter saying you " helped" the sales and marketing is not compelling. If the letter has metrics, point it in the appeal also point them to the screenshot showing metrics of your significant contribution.
In all, I think your evidence structure didn’t make the right impression. Better to have quality evidence than quantity that has a mix of weak and strong evidence.
In your case, I am not sure if it is worth paying a lawyer, you are in the best position to make clarification, consultants may not have enough details to overturn the decision. In any case, you can try.
6 Likes
I did get my feedback…rejected with flying colors 
We move!
My application was rejected for Exceptional Talent Criteria.
Submitted on 10th May
Decision received on 29th May
Following is the feedback from panel 
The applicant should not be endorsed for the Exceptional Talent visa. She has not provided compelling
and sufficient evidence to meet the criteria. She has applied under Optional Criteria 2 and 4 (OC2 and
OC4).
One challenge with the applicant’s evidence is that most of it is self certified and unverified and
supported only by reference letters or screenshots of email communication. These alone are not
suitable and must be supported by external and third party sources to corroborate the claims made by
the applicant. We are unable to see any such third party evidence.
Two of the three mandatory recommendation letters are from colleagues and as per the guidelines
letters from colleagues are not suitable towards an assessment of the Mandatory Criteria. The other
letter is from her college professor. We appreciate his observations on her “academic excellence” but
that is not a part of the visa criteria.
While the letters are complimentary towards her, we are unable to see in any of these letters any
demonstration of how and why she is one of the world’s leading digital tech experts at the forefront of
her field. We are unable to see any sustained or even emerging recognition for her by way of reputed
national or international awards in her field. There are no keynotes where she has shaped the direction
of her field. There is hardly any public profile or media coverage or recognition of her work. There are
no contributions to any local tech ecosystem or appreciation from the open source community. Her
GitHub contributions are respected but not at the standard we expect from awardees of this visa.
Participation in a hackathon isn’t any kind of recognition. The Pedagogue AI contract (6 weeks to 2
months) is hardly any kind of recognition or demonstration of being a leader in the field. Organising the
Multimodal AI 2023 event is respected but does not demonstrate any recognition. The progress made
on being shortlisted for the next stage of the Outreachy programme is respected but not relevant
towards demonstrating how she meets the visa criteria. Absent any notable recognition we are unable
to award the Mandatory Criteria.
Regarding OC2, being a judge in a competition is respected but we are unable to see how this is any
kind of recognition and are unable to see how this advanced the field. The GSSoC isn’t a structured
mentoring programme with specific criteria for mentee selection, and the programme mentoring tenure
hasn’t been long enough to be compelling. As noted above, we do not find her open source
contributions to be compelling. We are unable to award OC2.
Regarding OC4, the EU H2020 WorkingAge part time engagement isn’t compelling and nor does it
demonstrate any peer reviewed academic research where she is the lead author. Similarly, a
membership at the Alan Turing Institute also does not show any academic contributions that have
advanced the field. An invitation to interview at Oxford is admirable but has no relevance at all to this
visa. We are unable to award OC3.
We are unable to endorse the applicant as she does not meet any criteria.
Separately, we are unable to see any credible or actionable plan on how the applicant will add value to
the UK’s tech ecosystem. Just stating that “the opportunity to channel my expertise, creativity, and
unwavering zeal for technology towards enriching the vibrant and dynamic tech landscape of the UK. I
am enthusiastic about the potential to contribute to the innovation and growth of the UK tech sector” is
generic and hardly compelling for someone claiming to be exceptional.
Details about my application
Letters of Recommendations
-
From my a CEO xyz company [Data Engineer Position]
-
From my a COO xyz company [ Software Engineer position]
-
From my professor at my University who is a researcher.
MC Documents
- Proof of High Salary contract from Pedagogue AI [ Lead ML Developer]
- Includes screenshot of CEO’s email and contract [Although the initial contract is for 2 months but has good hourly rate, after that having an increment on the current salary with shares options], attached the comparison screenshot from Glassdoor salary.
- First Conference on MultiModal AI in the whole UK
- Includes pictures of volunteering as technical support for the conference and also a research poster presentation.
- OutReachy Partcipitan (Open source Internship)
- Stating how I was selected in a bunch of applications from the whole world by attaching screenshots of emails and from tweets.
- Contribution to GoogleAI Hackathon
- Includes link to hackathon project and my github repo contribution screenshot
OC2 Documents
- Evidence of being selected as a Judge at UniBots which is an annual competition for robotics in UK in which students from different universities can participate.
- Includes pictures of an event with me as judging during the competition.
- Mentor for GSSoC program in which around 5000-8000 applications are received each year and I got selected, which is also open source.
- Includes pictures from the internet and its website of how many applications were received in that particular year, details of accepted applications, and a screenshot of my email of selection as a mentee.
- Ivy Machine Learning Framework Contribution
- screenshot of email selection which indicates my application stood out to contribute in this open source ML framework, screenshot of code merged from GitHub repo, and my appreciation email screenshot.
OC4 Documents
- 3 months part-time employment from Cambridge Uni which is a big grant European horizon project.
- Screenshot of my refrance letter, and pictures of email for conversation of project, which indicates my work.
- Alan Turing Memeership
- Screenshot of email for membership from Alan Turing
- Oxford Interview for Phd application
- Screenshot of an email indicating I was invited for an interview as my research proposal was selected for the PhD at Oxford Uni.
CV- 3 Pages
Personal Statement - around 850 words
Applied for Exceptional Talent - Overall 8-9 years of experience.
@Francisca_Chiedu Could you please check and share your highlights and what would you suggest as further steps?
@Jayani_Bhatwadiya
Overall your application evidence were not really at a level expected of an exceptional talent applicants.
Mandatory criteria evidence 1
-
I am surprised the assessor didn’t flag that you presented a two month contract with hourly rate. The guide doesn’t encourage contracting role so. If you refer to this evidence in your appeal it may become evident that it wasn’t suitable in the first place.
-
Volunteering at Multimodal conference is not the same as being a key note speaker. This doesn’t show you have been recognised as a leader in your sector.
-
For an exceptional talent applicant, being selected for Outreach internship is not enough, it is not the same as contributing to substantial open source project, your evidence does not suggest you provided your actual contribution and if it was not at a level expected for GTV.
-
Participating in an Hackathon is also not a leadership recognition. Even for promise applicants some assessor don’t consider it as a recognition. 2-3 years ago, it could count for something for a promise applicant but not exceptional talent. Besides you didn’t win the Hackathon, just participating is not enough.
OC2
-
Give more details about the Unibot contribution and how your contribution advances the sector, you want to link your response to the requirements for OC2 in the guide.
-
Being selected as a mentee for GSOC programme clearly doesn’t meet the criteria, it is a different case if you were selected as a mentor. How does being a mentee advance the sector?
-
It appears your contribution wasn’t substantial. If you check opensource contribution accepted on the forum, the repo contribution is usually impressive.
OC4
-
The first evidence is a two month contract which doesn’t even fit into the criteria for OC4. Besides contracting roles are not acceptable.
-
Alan Turing membership clearly doesn’t meet the criteria and it is related to the evidence shared in OC2. It is not a unique evidence. There are no evidence of your contribution to research or reference letters that speaks about your contribution to research.
-
Being invited for a research interview at Oxford, is not an acceptance into Oxford. Even an acceptance into Oxford is not same as undertaking research or presenting some ground breaking work you have done.
There is no single evidence in your OC4 that showed your research contribution, peer reviewed work or anything substantial.
In all your didn’t provide compelling evidence for exceptional talent. You may still go ahead with a review if you wish. I hope this helps.
1 Like
Thank you very much for your feedback!
-
Unibots is an annual robotics competition in which universities from UK participate in this competition (https://unibots.uk/)
-
In GSSOC I was selected as Mentor
-
Multimodal Conference I was volunteered as well my research got selected to present and I presented my research in poster format.
and what about my recommendation letters?
I presented my letters from CEO and COO, they told this I presented my letters from my colleague which is totally unfair. and the third one is from my Uni professor. ( Previously I have seen one post on technation, who has been endorsed with professor’s recommendation letter)
Yes Unibot looks OK but how recent did you participate in the contribution, is it close to the timing of your application. For GSOC, what you listed suggested you were selected as a mentee. I note what you stated in your evidence listing "
details of accepted applications, and a screenshot of my email of selection as a mentee".
The Multimodal conference still doesn’t count the postal presentation is like using a workshop. You need to be speaking at the main stage of the conference.
The letter from CEO and COO, the assessor’s comment may likely be based on the content. Did they refer to you as their immediate colleague, where you reporting directly to them?. Reference letter from immediate colleague is not acceptable. Your University professor will likely have limited visibility about your work, other may have used it but you don’t know the content and overall strength of their application. GTV applications are subjective.
Lastly when making reference to others who have used an evidence be mindful that the guide is often updated so state up to date with the requirements.
Yes, Unibots was happened in 2023.
Sorry, about my mistake in above, In GSSOC I was accepted as a mentor.
For letters, I didn’t report directly to them, but yes, they wrote similar to this as pointing out my contribution directly.
Could you please give me the link of the guide?