Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:11 am

Urgent help needed
Hi All,

I submitted my exceptional talent stage 1 endorsement application on 28.10.20 and received a response on 02.11.20 that stated that I met the Key Criteria 1 and Qualifying Criteria 3 however the qualifying criteria 1 was rejected with a feedback that my company wasn't a digital company. The assessor acknowledged that my skills and contribution are well recognised and there wasn't any single specific feedback to my skills or significant impact of my work in product led company.

I submitted my appeal detailing out that my company was a digital led company on 28.11.20. I received a response on 04.12.20 with a rejection that I don't satisfy the Key Criteria 1 that was originally approved by the previous assessor. Nothing was mentioned about my company.

my question: Can the appeal assessor go back to find new points for rejection from originally approved criteria's? does the policy/process allow this? Has anybody faced this before? Any suggestions on next options?

Thanks in advance.

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:17 pm

Apologies I chose Key Criteria 2 (Significant impact) not Key criteria 1 (Innovation), for which I submitted 4 evidence to prove that my contribution had significant impact to our sector using digital products.

DreamerBeliever · Post by **DreamerBeliever** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:31 pm

sriram310 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:17 pm
Apologies I chose Key Criteria 2 (Significant impact) not Key criteria 1 (Innovation), for which I submitted 4 evidence to prove that my contribution had significant impact to our sector using digital products.

Hi Sriram
Sorry to hear this mate. Must be quite frustrating.
In my albeit limited experience with this visa type (9 months), I have personally never heard of an approved criteria getting rejected in appeal (which seems to be the case with you for KC2). Incidentally, your next steps would depend. Did they approve QC1 for you in the appeal?
If not, then KC2 rejection is sadly just an additional nuisance, with QC1 being the real stumbling block in your application.
If yes, then considering the uniqueness of your situation, you could perhaps consult Global talent visa specialist law-firms and explore this further.
Not sure if I answered your question. Sorry again
Best
D

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:49 pm

Hi D, thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately the appeal assessor didn't mention a word about the justification given for QC1. He/she opened the feedback straight away with KC2 points. In fact the feedback sounded like it was written in a hurry by quickly glancing the evidences submitted for KC2. i.e. I submitted 2 evidences that I mentored 2 digital company start ups with topics. The assessor believes it's consulting and not mentoring whereas the previous assessor believed it to be mentoring instead of consulting and approved the same evidence.

The difference between mentoring and consulting can be interpreted vice versa unless the content of the subject is reviewed but I don't have the option to submit it.

In the evidence both the startup founders have clearly mentioned it's mentoring (no obligation or commercial commitment).

I was too thinking of the same to approach a solicitor.

Many thanks
Ram

DreamerBeliever · Post by **DreamerBeliever** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:12 pm

sriram310 wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:49 pm
Hi D, thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately the appeal assessor didn't mention a word about the justification given for QC1. He/she opened the feedback straight away with KC2 points. In fact the feedback sounded like it was written in a hurry by quickly glancing the evidences submitted for KC2. i.e. I submitted 2 evidences that I mentored 2 digital company start ups with topics. The assessor believes it's consulting and not mentoring whereas the previous assessor believed it to be mentoring instead of consulting and approved the same evidence.

The difference between mentoring and consulting can be interpreted vice versa unless the content of the subject is reviewed but I don't have the option to submit it.

In the evidence both the startup founders have clearly mentioned it's mentoring (no obligation or commercial commitment).

I was too thinking of the same to approach a solicitor.

Many thanks
Ram

Hi Ram,
Incidentally I recently read someone else's rejection comments, saying this exact same thing - "clearly consultancy albeit unpaid". Therefore, the distinction is not on paid/unpaid - rather it is on consulting/mentoring - in the eyes of the assessor??
Also, you didn't answer whether QC1 continued to be rejected or approved - post appeal?
Finally, agree on the frustration in reading seemingly hurried rejection comments - after all, a typical applicant spends months compiling an application

Best
D

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:37 pm

Hi D,

I did reply on QC1, Unfortunately the appeal assessor didn't mention a word about the justification given for QC1. He/she opened the feedback straight away with KC2 points.

It took me 6 months to get the papers together inbtw there was a eligibility criteria change so had to rework on few. It's quite a significant amount of energy and time invested.

Many thanks
Ram.

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:37 pm

Hi D,

I did reply on QC1, Unfortunately the appeal assessor didn't mention a word about the justification given for QC1. He/she opened the feedback straight away with KC2 points.

It took me 6 months to get the papers together inbtw there was a eligibility criteria change so had to rework on few. It's quite a significant amount of energy and time invested.

Many thanks
Ram.

DreamerBeliever · Post by **DreamerBeliever** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:12 pm

sriram310 wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:37 pm
Hi D,

I did reply on QC1, Unfortunately the appeal assessor didn't mention a word about the justification given for QC1. He/she opened the feedback straight away with KC2 points.

It took me 6 months to get the papers together inbtw there was a eligibility criteria change so had to rework on few. It's quite a significant amount of energy and time invested.

Many thanks
Ram.

Hi Ram,

Just FYI, there should be a PDF check-list/ proforma that would have been mailed to you by UKVI detailing the reasons why your endorsement wasn't approved, typically through a separate email. If you haven't seen it, would probably be sitting in your spam folder. That document might help you answer on QC1 definitively, rather than inferring from the review comments.

Anyway, all the best, mate.

Cheers
D

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:18 pm

Hi D,

I got the proforma pdf file for the first rejection however the appeal rejection was sent in an email without a prorfoma. I only got an email with the justification, there was no prorfoma attached. Are you sure for appeal response they send prorfoma pdf?

DreamerBeliever · Post by **DreamerBeliever** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:01 pm

sriram310 wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:18 pm
Hi D,

I got the proforma pdf file for the first rejection however the appeal rejection was sent in an email without a prorfoma. I only got an email with the justification, there was no prorfoma attached. Are you sure for appeal response they send prorfoma pdf?

Yes, sure.

ap1010 · Post by **ap1010** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:17 am

hi sriram310

this is very odd - am in same situation where I am stuck on QC1 with almost similar comments. did you find any headway on this ? any lawfirm you are consulting

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:36 am

The first rejection for QC1, the assessor mentioned in the feedback that he/she recognises that I have made significant impact through my contribution however the reason for rejection was my company was not a digital led product company. So clearly it was not about my skills or talent but the company profile.

I've justified that my company is a digital led product company by showing lot of evidences available in open media, app stores and our site along with rewards and industry recognition of our digital products. Did you also receive the same reason?

ap1010 · Post by **ap1010** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:17 pm

Yes I have got exactly the same reasons on QC3 (1) my company is not a digital product-led (2) thought I have made significant contribution but the assessor can't be sure of my individual contributions.

any insights on how these points can be addressed would be great help.

sriram310 · Post by **sriram310** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:53 pm

Sorry I'm a bit confused in your previous reply you mentioned that QC1(significant impact) was rejected and in your second response you mentioned QC3 (continuous learning). Are you rejected for both criteria's?

ap1010 · Post by **ap1010** » Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:05 pm

sorry my bad its QC1 (significant contribution)

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved

Re: Appeal rejected with criteria that was originally approved