Challenging Tech Nation Endorsement Refusal: A Case Study on Addressing Optional Criteria 2
What is an Endorsement Review?
An endorsement review is the process of challenging a decision to reject an endorsement application. If you’ve applied for a Global Talent endorsement and been refused, you have the option to request a review of the decision, which could potentially reverse the outcome.
It is important to note that you cannot submit new evidence during the review process. The focus is on clarifying and expanding on the evidence already submitted in the original application.
At Sterling Law, Alexandra Mokrova and Nelli Tesis are experienced professionals in preparing successful endorsement reviews and helping clients present compelling cases for reconsideration.
Case Study: Tech Nation Endorsement Review
The client applied for a Tech Nation endorsement under the following criteria:
- Optional Criteria 1: Proven Innovation
Demonstrating a track record of innovation as a founder, senior executive, or employee working on cutting-edge digital technologies. - Optional Criteria 2: Recognition Beyond Occupation
Showing contributions to the advancement of the digital technology field that go beyond their professional role.
The Client’s Background:
Our client is an expert in AI and Machine Learning, specialising in AI market research and the development of innovative digital products. He has a proven track record in tech business development, including success in sales, partnerships, and growth strategies. Notably, he founded the largest AI community in his home country. Alexandra Mokrova and Nelli Tesis prepared his case for endorsement, making them very familiar with both the case and the client’s exceptional talent.
The Endorser’s Decision:
While the client was recognised as a leader in his field, the endorsement panel did not find sufficient evidence for the optional criteria related to innovation and contributions outside of his job role. This was surprising, especially given the client’s significant involvement in AI development and community building.
For the purpose of this article, we are going to focus on addressing Optional Criteria 2 (OC2): Contributions Beyond Occupation
The Endorser’s main argument was that the applicant’s work at a non-profit AI community seemed to be within his professional occupation rather than contributing beyond it. They noted that this community is linked to a commercial entity, and the applicant’s involvement could imply a commercial agreement rather than voluntary work advancing the AI field. The Endorser also expressed concerns about the applicant potentially being paid for his contributions and indicated that there was insufficient evidence of his impact on the field beyond his occupation.
The Team’s Response:
- Non-Profit Leadership:
In response, Alexandra and Nelli clarified that the community operates as a separate, non-profit entity, and the assumption that the applicant received payment for his role was incorrect. The applicant holds a separate full-time position at another company, and his work with the community is entirely voluntary. - Educational Initiatives:
The team noted that the applicant founded this community in order to promote AI education, and the applicant has been leading in organising initiatives such as online lectures for over 700 machine learning engineers. - Public Speaking and Conferences:
The review also pointed out the applicant’s active participation in major AI and tech conferences, such as the European AI Forum 2022. These public engagements demonstrated his influence and contributions to the advancement of the field, well beyond his commercial role. - Publications:
Furthermore, the team stated that the applicant provided evidence of numerous publications in leading AI outlets, which were not fully recognised by the Endorser. These publications, addressing advanced AI topics and reaching large audiences, were clear examples of his work outside of his direct occupation.
The Outcome:
By presenting clear evidence that the client’s contributions extended beyond his professional role, the team successfully demonstrated his fulfilment of Optional Criteria 2. The endorsement panel reconsidered their decision, ultimately leading to a successful endorsement for the client.
By pointing out and referring to the evidence already provided, the team demonstrated his fulfilment of Optional Criteria 2. They highlighted what the Endorser had overlooked and requested to reconsider the decision. This point-by-point clarification led the endorsement panel to grant endorsement for the client.
How We Can Help:
If you have had an endorsement application refused, our team can help you prepare a strong, evidence-based case for review. Alexandra Mokrova and Nelli Tesis have an extensive record of success in helping clients reverse decisions and secure the endorsements they need to apply for Global Talent Visa.
