What is difference :criteria 1 and 3?

Hi friends, need your kind help.

I sent my application to Tech nation and it was not accepted in two days. I was accepted for mandatory, and criteria 1. but not accepted for criteria 2.
the note below with the “More information is required” tag:
“The evidence provided for the second optional criteria requires proof of recognition for work beyond the
applicant’s occupation that contributes to the advancement of the field. Much of the evidence presented
here relates to speaking at academic events or around **(my subject) (which is the market
your company is in). Whilst this is positive as an academic and founder of your company, both are considered part of the
applicant’s occupation.”

My question is,

  1. can I ask to change my optional from 2nd criteria to 3rd in my review? Realy I did not understand the difference between criteria1 and 3; therefore I selected criteria 2.
  2. the second question is that my subject of expertise in criteria 1 and 2 has not to be the same?
  3. In the case of not changing the criteria, and adding a new document( as mentioned for reviews in Tech nation site), how can I add more information to review?
    Thanks a lot

Do you mind sharing the details of what you submitted for mandatory evidence, criteria 1 and criteria 2?

Hi, Sorry you were not endorsed. I will attempt to answer your questions.

  1. I mentored someone who had prepared documents based on one criterion and accidentally ticked an incorrect criterion during the process of filling the Tech Nation Visa form. He was not endorsed based on not meeting that criteria (which he ticked in error).

Our strategy during endorsement review was to:
a. re-emphasize how all the documents submitted met the criterion that he did not tick.
b. also raised some points on how the documents he submitted met the criteria he ticked incorrectly (we both thought this part was weak).

He got the endorsement on the review process. I am honestly not sure if one or both arguments swayed the assessors this. I share this to mention that it is possible for you to state your case during the endorsement review.

However, if you believe the assessors are correct in their assessment. It may be better to plan to submit a new application in the future rather than wasting their time.

1b. On the difference between the 2 criteria, I believe that the Tech Nation Visa Guide (https://technation.io/visa-tech-nation-visa-guide/) makes this very clear. For example, the difference between criteria 1 (innovation) and criteria 3 (proof of impact) is numbers. This is explicitly stated in the guide. This can be in thousands of people impacted or millions of dollars earned or thousands of dollars saved, and so on. But you MUST show evidence of NUMBERS. I suggest you read that section of the guide that mentions this again.

  1. The assessors are assessing your profile (as submitted) with documentary evidence (as submitted). They will also google you. Check your LinkedIn and validate some of the documentary evidence you provided by checking for crumbs and public artifacts online.

I assume you submitted evidence of 2 subjects of expertise because you were trying to show your diversity of skills. Is it possible you inadvertently did not submit enough to qualify under any of the 2 skills?

  1. You cannot add more information or document during the endorsement review stage. The best you can do is to point at the information available in the evidence that you submitted. The idea of this stage is for new assessors to review your submission in case the first assessors made mistakes. If you believe you need to submit new evidence, you will need to submit a new application.

I know of someone who submitted a new application just 4 days after he got feedback on the first application. (needed to submit better evidence based on feedback). He got the endorsement after this.

Having said the above, I also know of someone that provided some online links (which were mentioned in the personal statement but no document submitted) in the endorsement review form. The endorsement review was successful and the person got the endorsement. My understanding however is that this is ordinarily not allowed in the process.

I hope this helps? I wish you the very best in your endeavours.

*Standard Disclaimer:
a. Please note that this is not immigration or legal advice. It is simply us sharing our opinion based on the information and experience available to us.

b. We are only volunteering our time to help as many people as possible. We unfortunately are not available full-time. Please respect this. In addition to contributing here, I also do some office hours sessions on Zoom (weekly for now). You can find the link to this in my bio.*

1 Like

mandatory:(accepted0

  1. CEO/Founder evidence for IT company
  2. Documents about developed software by my company
  3. pieces of evidence about my resume in pictures and links
    Criteria 1:(accepted)
  4. certificate of the knowledge-intensive and innovative company (my company) evaluated with a supreme national association
  5. software patemt
  6. Company annual revenue/staff certified list
    Criteria 2:(not accepted)
  7. Faculty member document-IT department/conferences/
  8. best teacher certifiate/Funds

Thanks for your complete answer.

I have been confused about criteria 2. As my second career (more than CEO/Founder), I am a university professor at IT, and evidence for my mentorship and some other things like founding a practical magazine was mentioned in docs. Therefore, I don’t know the clear reason for rejecting this criterion,

moreover, at the end of feedback, they said “There is also little information to show how this contributes to the advancement of the sector.
More information is required.”
Does it mean that I can attach new documents?

Thank you again

You need to explain that the practical magazine you founded is not related to your immediate employment as a lecturer. Demonstrate that it is your voluntary contribution to advance the tech field.

I appreciate your great solution.
Another question :
The field of my magazine is the same as my university and company. While it is completely independent of them. Is this similarity in the field a problematic issue?
Tnx a lot

I don’t think it is a problem, if that is the work in then show that it is not related to your work at your company or university.

Great piece of guide, @Francisca_Chiedu
moreover:
It seems that reviewers presumably assume both my faculty job and being Founder/CEO as my immediate occupation, while I gave docs for mandatory and Criteria1 merely around Founder/CEO role.
Then I set my university documents like my appointment as a “full-time professor” , “fundraising in my university projects up to 600k£”, and the “recognition award for best teacher” in criteria2. Indeed, I was not a regular faculty member, and these items (Fund and recognition are my merits)
Is it ok, if I ask them to assume my university role as the second activity in the society on the field?

And also, I had lots of mentorship for startups beyond my first professional field. But I did not mention it in my first application. can I claim them as my activities beyond my immediate job in review? (ie. without adding documents and only links of sites)

Your award as best teacher is for a paid job so it can’t count as optional criteria two. Besides, the guide doesn’t recognise internal company award, so you school award may not count. If you didnot mention the startup in your initial application then it tricky. You lose nothing talking about it. In my opinion I think you should emphasize that your tech magazine is not connected with your teaching job or startup and explain how it contributes to the advancement of the sector. Elaborate more on your impact and how you have gone beyond immediate job to contribute to the tech sector.

The best and the most complete answers, appreciate a lot