-
I got the decision letter stating this: Screenshots also contain evidence from social media which is not suitable
How else can you substantiate your claims if your ‘only’ evidence exists on social media , such as user traction, startup’s presence / engagement on LinkedIn or even a ‘date of certain activity’ to prove it falls within the permissible 5 year period of showcasing evidences? -
What should the subject line in the email be when submitting an appeal?
-
What exactly does it mean on the tech nation visa guide : ‘Not to use templates for letters of recommendation’, what does this even mean?
-
If you are a potential talent, what does a public profile mean to show leadership? Is this on wikipedia? How can a potential talent be expected to have a public profile if they are still showing emerging leadership?
-
Is it the activity/employment of 5 years ago or the impact that they consider within the last 5 years from the date of the application submission to consider evidences from this activity or employment?
-
How many screenshots should be supplied on a single page in a single document?
-
Can you use a similar example for more than one criteria - salary from glassdoor for more than one employment?
-
What are the different examples of evidence you can give to showcase MC, OC1, OC2, and OC3 under product management/business analysis and where you have an early stage startup?
I think it’ll help if you share the feedback that you got from TN - that way we can help you address the points there.
- It’s too late for an appeal since you can’t provide more evidence - but internal company docs would have helped.
- Doesn’t really matter, probably need to include the application ID
- LoRs need to be unique and not like copies of one another. If they are too similar that may mean the candidate lead the recommenders
- Everyone has a public profile or things they did outside direct work. But seeing point 5 about your work history then you might be reviewed as a talent candidate.
- Evidence needs to be from the last 5 years
- The rule is that vvidence needs to be legible. Other than that there’s no limit.
- Evidence needs to be unique. You can probably use two types of salary evidence but in my mind that’s wasting a spot that can be used for other kinds of evidence
- It’s all mentioned in the guide Tech Nation Visa Guide - Tech Nation. Did you submit evidence for 3 optional criteria? That’s not allowed.
Hi, thanks for your responses, my question 1 is still unanswered, as social media links such as linkedin or facebook to show proof of date within the 5 year permissible period was all I could provide for one particular document I mean.
please see the assessment panel feedback below:
The applicant should not be endorsed for the Exceptional Promise visa. She clearly states in the form
that she has more than 5 years of experience in the tech sector and her CV confirms this. She is not at
an early stage of her tech career and therefor not eligible for the Promise criteria. She has been
assessed for the talent criteria. She has not provided compelling and sufficient evidence to meet the
criteria. She has applied under Optional Criteria 2 and 3 (OC2 and OC3). Even if we take a liberal
interpretation of the guidelines and assess her for the Promise criteria, she would still not meet the
guidelines due to lack of evidence.
There are multiple challenges with the evidence submitted. Most of the evidence is self-authored
documents and reference letters that are not supported by external and third party evidence as required
under the guidelines. There are numerous external links and assessors are not required to access any
of them, as per the guidelines. The applicant has also cut and pasted multiple screenshots onto a single
page and this is also not suitable. Screenshots also contain evidence from social media which is not
suitable. Some of the letters are digitally signed but do not carry a signature trail. Finally, the applicant
has to submit 2 unique pieces of evidence towards each criteria and cannot re-use evidence across
criteria. She has not followed this. It is in the applicant’s interest to submit evidence that is legible and
that meets the guidelines. This is a very poor and weak application.
All three mandatory letters show multiple signs of templating. The last letter isn’t authored by an
acknowledged expert in the tech sector. This letter has also been digitally signed but does not have the
required signature trail. The second letter is from a person who ran a 12-week accelerator that the
applicant participated in. We are not convinced that this person has a detailed knowledge of the
applicant’s work over a period of 12 months or more, as required under the guidelines. We are unable
to see anything exceptional or extraordinary described in these letters.
In any case, despite long-term experience in the field above 5 years the applicant has not received any
sustained recognition by way of reputed tech industry awards at a national or international level. There
are no keynotes at leading global tech events or publications in leading tech journals where she has
shaped the direction of her field. Evidence from 9 Spokes isn’t suitable as it is outside the permissible
last 5 year period from the date of this application. Aldemore isn’t a product-led digital technology
company and working on digital transformation is specifically indicated as an area of activity not suitable
towards this visa. We are unable to see any public profile or recognition of her leadership and
contributions to the tech sector. The salary level is respectable but not indicative of any rare or scarce
skill. Absent any notable recognition we are unable to award the Mandatory Criteria.
Regarding OC2, we respect her work at HireAMum.co.nz but are unable to see how this advanced the
tech field. Petitioning for Wi-Fi in NZ public transport is also respected but not the kind of activity that
meets the criteria. Being elected councilor isn’t tech related or field advancing. We are unable to award
OC2.
Regarding OC3, most of the evidence is self-authored and unverified. We need to see independent third
party evidence to support her claims. Being accepted into and being awarded £7,500 in funding isn’t
any significant contribution to the field. Neither is getting SEIS compliance. The Guiness World Record
activity is clearly not tech related or demonstrative of impact on the tech sector. Lotto NZ is a lottery
provided and not a product-led tech company. Reference letters are not suitable on their own and
cannot be res-used if already used towards another criteria. We are unable to award OC3.
We are unable to endorse the applicant as she does not meet any criteria.
The TN feedback seems quite clear and self-explanatory. In the appeal, you cannot provide any new information but only redirect the assessor to specific parts in your application if you demonstrated what they have refuted. Seeing the feedback, it looks like that won’t help in most case as they have not accepted a lot of evidence provided and recommenders. It’s best to incorporate the feedback in a new application if you decide to apply again.
In addition to what @hsafra has answered:
On #1: it depends what you were trying to demonstrate from this document where you posted multiple social media screenshots. Which criteria and what exactly were you trying to demonstrate and what kind of social media evidence did you provide to prove it? If these were LinkedIn or Facebook callouts and posts appreciating you, that’s considered weak evidence and in most cases not even accepted. What was the engagement levels on these social media evidences? Did you paste screenshots like a collage or was there any context given in each screenshot as to how it demonstrates the criteria success and your contribution in this?
Without knowing the above details, it’s hard to comment.
Please go through the official TN guidelines to see examples of evidences under each criteria and what each criteria stands for/if your evidences under that criteria demonstrate the criteria meaning.
@Ankita_Sharma Hi, I’m sorry to hear about the outcome. Based on the feedback provided by the assessor, it seems you may need to submit a new application. When did you apply, and when did you receive this feedback?
Honestly, I dont see that you need help on this and your application and feedback is quite clear and the appeal is a little bit challenging in this case.
However, maybe if you share the list of evidences, we will have better understanding of your situation.
Anyhow, depending on TN feedback, I would definitely recommend starting new application (if you like) and paying attention to every single comment they shared (as in fact they guided you to a successful application)
Points like : number of years experience, external validation, avoiding social media evidences, avoiding using an evidence for two criteria, adding only tech related evidences & tech related professionals, avoiding reference letter on its own as are insufficient, etc.