Weirdest previous applications.Planning 3rd submission, Help me with evidence review - EP

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I am planning my 3rd submission for the Global Talent Visa (Exceptional Promise) as a startup founder and Software engineer

My previous applications had the weirdest, most frustrating outcomes:

  • Application 1: OC2 and OC3 were Accepted, but MC was Rejected.(January 2025)
  • Application 2: MC was Accepted, but OC2 and OC3 were Rejected (October 2025)

MANDATORY CRITERIA EVIDENCE (Impact & Leadership Beyond Employment):

  • 1.Tech-for-Good Architectural Leadership for an NGO (Volunteer)
    • Architected the charity’s core digital infrastructure (Connect app) and accessible online donation system**
    • 30% increase in international donor engagement.
    • Backed by a detailed reference letter from the Charity President (NHS Doctor).
    • Charity featured in various regional newspapers, Online news channel
    • My contibuttions are marked in their landing page with name & photo

Commercial Innovation / Side Project:

  • Solo-built a side project App.
  • #2 Product Hunt winner daily.
  • #1 Product Hunt winner weekly in Health and fitness category
  • Scaled to 20,000+ downloads with a growing base of paying users, proving independent commercial viability outside my main startup.(in 7 months),
  • featured in uneed.best top 10 tracking apps of 2025
  • 4.8 star rating

High-Impact Sector Publications:

  • Published widely read technical frameworks on AI and edtech
  • Verified 1.2 Million+ cumulative views on Technology.org. for 2 articles
  • Featured in InfluencerUK magazine. 313k read count

This MC was accepted last time

OPTIONAL CRITERIA 2 (Mentorship & Sector Contribution):
Global Developer Recognition (Stack Overflow):

  • Stackoverflow profile, continuos contribution
  • 600+ reputation score
  • 35 badges won including gold( gold badge is new evidence)
  • Mentored multiple software engineers as part of a 7 week mentorship program,
  • letter from a Mentee a BBC Software Engineer to architect and launch her own EdTech app.
  • Helped her reach 600 beta users and 200 active monthly testers. Backed by a direct reference letter from the mentee.
  • Github open source contribution 400+ stras on my all repositories combined,prequalified for Github Grants Program(email screenshot)
  • Medium Code based tutorial articles written in 2022 with 200+ claps for multiple articles(new evidence)

OPTIONAL CRITERIA 3 (Commercial & Product Impact):

  • Product Traction:EdTech Startup

  • Solo-engineered native apps Swift, Kotlin,Ktor backend

  • ~10,000 active installs in 3 months(new evidence)

  • 3 figure MRR, Hit 4 figure monthly revenue this month (Revenucat dashboard)(new evidence)

  • Won muslim Tech fest 2024 London free stall alongside google and amazon(international event London,Sanfrancisco, event was featured in BBC, Guradian)

  • Won Elevenlabs startup grant ($4000 worth)

  • Accepted into a Buildathon like accelerator 7 weeks in london, 20 applicants accepted from 500+ applications , won 1000 GBP Cash grant

  • Invitation to Talk on a UK TV channel for morning show to speak(But i have to be there for this)

  • Angel Investment Offer (LOI):(new evidence)

  • signed Letter of Intent for a $50,000 angel investment at a $1000,000 valuation.

  • Offered by the former UK Head of similiar field product company (validating industry product-market fit), strictly conditional on my UK visa approval.

RECOMMENDATION LETTERS (3 Mandatory):

  • CEO & EdTech Founder (2M+ downloads):
  • Founder/CEO & Ex-VC ( $2.2M funded startup founder ):
  • Staff Data Scientist of a Popular fintech company & Startup Founder of a well known app in news & media: --all from the UK

@pahuja @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu @Raphael

2

Thats strange, did you use same oc2 and oc3 on second appliation?

3

i had an online mentorship thing in my first application for oc2, but TN changed using it in new rules later,hence could nt use that, but i had no gold badge before, TN reviewed they look for gold badges in Stackoverflow, now i have that atleast and other evidences

4

Why didn’t you appeal and point out that both were accepted in previous applications.

5

One of the reasons were, the online mentorship evidence were no longer be able to use in second application, TN stripped of that one at the time, and as for OC3, I changed my previous employment based proof to my startup because it was more relevent for the time, but startup app wasnt launched at the time of secon d application(only in accelrator,waitlist, grant—now startup has launched I have 4 figure reveneu in 3 months, angel investment loi)

What you think of the new evidences for my next application?

6

@mohamed_rimshadpcs I can sincerely relate.

I had to do a bit of research on the reason why a criterion gets accepted in one application and gets rejected in another. Whilst I was first tempted to think it could be inconsistencies in the standard of appeal, I got to understand what could be the cause and what applicants can do to avoid it.

The applicant notes that the same evidence was accepted in a prior application. Each application is assessed independently by its assessors. A prior determination does not bind the current assessment, and the current assessment has been conducted in accordance with the published criteria.

With feedback like this, one cannot rely on an accepted criterion in a previous application to predict or expect acceptance in a new application.

To be fair to Tech Nation, A criterion should consists at least two evidence sets (let’s say MC1 and MC2). But an average applicant submits at least three in a criterion (MC1, MC2, and MC3). So, except for very strong evidence or the ones they specifically mentioned, it is almost impossible to know which evidence brought about the acceptance decision. They complement each other. So when reapplying, due to situations beyond or within our control, like “TN stripped off that one at the time, and as for OC3, I changed my previous employment‑based proof to my startup because it was more relevant for the time,” as @mohamed_rimshadpcs said, we end up changing something that perhaps was the determining factor, which the others complemented.

My suggestions: If a criterion was accepted before, instead of replacing or removing an evidence therein, add to it. If you have GitHub contributions, contribute more. Do more of everything in that criterion. Don’t replace, add more to it.

You also want to use consistency bias to increase the chances of them saying yes again.This is a psychological tendency where people feel pressure to stay consistent with their past decisions, statements, or behaviours, even when the situation has changed.

You want to say something like:

Evidence of speaking
I want to thank you for accepting this same evidence in my last application; however, I have had more opportunities and have spoken at more events, also added to the previously accepted.

Events as presented in my last accepted application
1
2
3

New speaking added
4.

As you can see, it will be hard for even you reading this to say no if you were the reviewer, except if there are indeed new reasons beyond doubt that should warrant the rejection.

It can be discouraging. You have come this far guys, and it is not over until you win.

Strategies work!

All the best.

1 Like
7

Hey @Raphael really appreciate the time and effort you took to write all these,it’s is very useful, honestly

I was also wondering what you think of my app evidences this time, marked “new evidence” in some of the evidences
Many thanks

1 Like
8

Just to butress what @raphael said

Your case is interesting because the panel has already shown that each part of your application can pass individually, but not together at the same time. That usually means the issue is not just evidence, but how the story and criteria mapping are structured.

The fact that MC passed once and OC2/OC3 passed in another application suggests the evidence itself is not fundamentally weak. The problem is likely consistency, attribution, and how the criteria are demonstrated together in one narrative.

For example, regarding Mandatory Criteria, the fact that it was accepted previously is a strong signal. I would avoid changing MC too much. Tech Nation panels are different each time, and changing strong evidence sometimes creates new doubts. Your Product Hunt success, sector publications, and the NGO architecture project together form a reasonable MC story. What you should do instead is strengthen the proof of recognition, not replace the evidence.

2 Likes
9

Thanks man, i wont change much in MC
Really appreciate the effort to write