Please have a read of this website, and if you would like to show your support and understanding, share this so that more people can be aware of the issue.
In June 2018, I applied for the Tier 1 Exceptional Promise Visa in the UK. The process is completed in two steps: first, to get an endorsement from an endorsing body that is supposed to fairly assess each application, and second, to get the visa from the Home Office in case of successful endorsement. This website sheds the light on unethical practices at Tech Nation that prevented me from getting endorsed and provides only facts that show to everyone how Tech Nation believes that it can make whatever decision it wants to based on whether they like or dislike an applicant and not on objective criteria at all.
1Arc:—Modern France, that should know a great deal better than myself, insists that the name is not d’Arc, i.e. of Arc, but Darc. Now it happens sometimes, that if a person, whose position guarantees his access to the best information, will content himself with gloomy dogmatism, striking the table with his fist, and saying in a terrific voice—“It is so; and there’s an end of it,”—one bows deferentially; and submits. But if, unhappily for himself, won by this docility, he relents too amiably into reasons and arguments, probably one raises an insurrection against him that may never be crushed; for in the fields of logic one can skirmish, perhaps, as well as he. Had he confined himself to dogmatism; he would have entrenched his position in darkness, and have hidden his own vulnerable points. But coming down to base reasons, he lets in light, and one sees where to plant the blows. Now, the worshipful reason of modern France for disturbing the old received spelling, is—that Jean Hordal, a descendant of La Pucelle’s brother, spelled the name Darc, in 1612. But what of that? Beside the chances that M. Hordal might be a gigantic blockhead, it is notorious that what small matter of spelling Providence had thought fit to disburse amongst man in the seventeenth century, was all monopolized by printers: in France, much more so. Thomas De Quincey
My legitimate concern as to why Tech Nation allowed errors in the decision when I paid a large sum of money has triggered the Senior Manager's dominance reaction and they tried to conceal their incompetence by making sure I don't join their "elite" visa club.
The main reason for that is because Tech Nation is a company with 80% public funding, and is therefore run from people's wallets and supposedly for people's benefit. Unfortunately, money and power spoil hearts and souls, especially of persons with their own insecurities, and instead of being humble servants to society with friendly and down-to-earth attitude and with the goal of helping the community and individuals, Tech Nation has joined the dark side of corruption of modest mind and kindly morals. It has enjoyed unlimited freedom to play by its own rules, forgetting that it is accountable to every single person in the country. Even though there are many people working for Tech Nation, it is responsible for actions of a single person, and the main purpose of this website is to show that no one should be abusing their position in a way that Tech Nation's Senior Manager has done. It is not simply about me getting or not getting the visa, it is about social justice and such social norms as fairness and transparency when it comes to making decisions that are so important in people's lives. Just letting things be as they are is a slippery slope to the future where nobody expects justice because there is none.
The majority of people would initially think that I am so bitter because the application was rejected, but it is not the case. The process of getting endorsed consists of Tech Nation sending the applications to the Panel of Experts and forwarding its response back. The response that I got had errors in it, which had to be corrected. Firstly, there had to be no errors when the fee that I paid is £456 which is a lot of money. Secondly, I went to the Tech Nation's office to talk about it where I met the Senior Manager. They never apologised and by their way of conducting the conversation it was clear that they were against me from the very beginning: one does not have to practice clairvoyance to understand when someone is not on their side. In any way, when the decision has errors, it is subject to the review by the Panel of Experts again. The review that I received, however, was so hostile that it was clear as day that its only purpose was to portray me in the worst light possible. It was meant to be done by the Panel of Experts, but I know that it wasn't, and here's 5 main reasons why:
There are many other faults with Tech Nation, as this website shows. For example, they allow their Visa ambassadors to sell application templates to people without even providing candidates with essential information such as examples of evidence they expect in the guidance (for the Promise route)! I approached the application with the attention to the guidelines, whereas Tech Nation just said whatever they wanted to say without any respect for those guidelines. The saddest thing is that I honestly tried to build quality software with focus on documentation and developer experience and invented something unique that was never there before, and I deserved my work to be recognised. The Panel of Experts has called me skilled and talented for which I am so grateful because I know that the visa is not about any community like the manager believes, but about the ability, passion for programming and finding your own way. Such disproportionate in its enmity review for me feels like what a 15-year old would feel when trying to start a vegan cup-cake business and coming up with a new recipe, but all communists around her laughing at her because she believes in something so pure that no one else can understand and telling her she has to join the Party and bake for the people in order to be successful: although the left pretends that they're all building a better future for everyone, in reality all they care about is their own power to establish their dominance so that everyone else does not have a say which is a typical trait of the left-wing politics.
That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Ted Kaczynski
— Before you judge me, the point of this quote is not whether it's right or wrong for people to have opinions that differ from the majority's ones, but that the leftist does not care either and all they attain by their fighting for other people's rights (or forcing applicants for the tech visa to have a profile instead of letting them do legitimate work) is their own sense of power since they cannot achieve it by other means such as starting an enterprise which is what I want to do.
I am an independent developer who builds his own tools for his own future with the aim of establishing the infrastructure for his business, and publishes them online, and I know how hard it is to get people using it. To say I have no profile is to reject the fact that the work that I do is directed towards results and not towards being known by a bunch of people I don't care about, and also to not understand how much effort it takes to create a profile. It only shows cruelty of one's intentions, ignorance of what really matters in the field, and disregard for any professional work. The requirement for the profile never came from the guidance, but came from the mind of the biased Senior Manager who believes that they are so right in the fact that everyone has to have a profile. It is political discrimination against those people who do not agree with it, but because of their position, they can do whatever they want.
The tone assumed in the review should never take place in communication between semi-government official (who represents the whole country) and talented people since it can destroy all motivation and cause a lot of emotional pain. At least say one good thing, it is not only common sense, but the rule when doing a peer review. The review is harassing me on purpose to show who is in the authority. I know better than to be upset about it because I know what outstanding work I've done, but the person responsible for abusing their position has to receive their feedback that their behaviour is unacceptable. In a way, they have helped me because without struggle there's no competition, and this website has been an interesting project from technological and journalistic points of view. It also helped me to remember that everything that we acquire in this life is temporal — "how wise is the Deity, who is deaf to their wishes!", but anyone who will not see Tech Nation's shortcomings, either intentional or non-intentional for which they paid from their taxes, will "become a gardener's ass in the next birth!"
To quickly check that what I am saying is correct, there are the Home Office Guidance section on this website, which has the guidance presented as summarised requirements for the visa application, and the Communications section with the Panel of Experts decision together with the review. By checking the review against the requirements, one will be able to see that the review is plain hostile against me, uses incorrect criteria, does not say a word about outlined consideration factors and ignores all my skills and achievements such as the ability to build and deploy a technology stack and the 2:1 and distinction degrees from British universities in the hottest areas of Computer Science today — that is, the AI and Computer Security.
The Guidance document makes it clear that a person should choose only one of the two key criteria: either having to prove contributions of innovations in a tech company, or that they worked outside of working hours for the community's benefit. It is further confirmed by the track record/career history factor that is to be taken into consideration: "the significance of your work and the impact of your activity in a company OR as an individual". The reviewer, however, is thoroughly convinced that the application had to include the proof of a profile (which in their opinion is "feasible even with limited experience") and concluded that: "The applicant needs to have a stronger profile within the developer community AND more evidence that what he is doing is truly innovative, in order to meet the key and qualifying criteria."
This is the question from the application form which I answered in the following way:
I demonstrate the potential to become a world leader in the field of digital technology because by the age of 25 I held a Senior Software Developer role, and quit it to start my own business. Throughout the last two years, I have worked consistently on building my own infrastructure in form of NPM packages, which will help me to produce more software. The tools that I have created cover a large span of the possible requirements for software engineering, including:
|My own testing framework, Zoroaster, which supports the context-testing feature to separate the test setup and teardown routines from the actual test logic. I have tested all my packages with zoroaster and using it became part of every development lifecycle.|
|A tool to bootstrap new NPM packages, MNP, which also allows to create scoped packages and manage packages within different github organisations. Each new package can be created in a matter of seconds, and with a standard modern Node.js software structure.|
|Domain management CLI tool, Expensive, to register and maintain domains via the namecheap.com API. It simplifies the process of acquiring domains and setting their DNS details. Because there's also a programmatic API, it can be incorporated into other packages, for example to automatically register new domains for packages created with MNP.|
|A documentation pre-processor, Documentary, to compile markdown README files from multiple files. It has greatly improved the documentation side of all my packages, and allowed me to quickly embed examples and their output, generate tables of contents, document methods and types, and include tables.|
These are the main tools that I will be using in my future daily work, and I believe that they demonstrate my commitment to creating high-quality, well-documented and tested software and bringing it to the market very quickly. I always have many ideas and I seek to implement them in the best possible way. As the next steps to building my portfolio, I will create a CI tool, and test case tracking software. Finally, I am communicative and an expert in my field and always willing to give advice.
In addition, I included the graph and annotation to it describing how I made 62 packages over the past 2 years with constant improvement on the process, such as starting to use my testing framework and documentation tool. The review, however, said: "The applicant may have developed a number of software tools using a number of frameworks; however, there is no evidence that these are being used by the wider technical or developer community. We can see no evidence of a track record." This could only have been written by a person with zero understanding of technology. I didn't use any frameworks (using a single method from the React library in Idio cannot be called using a framework). And if 62 packages is not a track record in the Node.js world, then England is not part of the UK.
Also it's not the point whether the tools are not used by the developer community — the point is that I use it every day and they prove my skill and ability to set my personal standard by developing my own technology. It's hard to believe that such corruption should happen at the Senior level at Tech Nation, but it's true. Not a single expert in the world will confirm what is said about me using the frameworks. Had he confined himself to dogmatism; he would have entrenched his position in darkness, and have hidden his own vulnerable points. But coming down to base reasons, he lets in light, and one sees where to plant the blows.