Application Review Request: Exceptional Promise UK Global Talent Visa Application

Stage 1
1

Hello everyone,

I’m preparing to apply for the UK Global Talent Visa (Exceptional Promise route) in March and would really appreciate feedback.

I’m a Software(Backend) Engineer with 4+ years of professional experience, working across product development, technical leadership, mentorship, open-source, speaking engagements, and academic publications.

Below is a high-level overview of my planned evidence, mapped to the Tech Nation criteria. I’d love feedback on whether this is clear, well-structured, and sufficiently strong, or if there are gaps I should address.

Recommendation Letters

  1. Lead Principal Engineer at my current company (worked together for 1+ years) with 14+ years of engineering experience, and Former CTO at another company.

  2. Founder of a youth-focused NGO where I mentored and now serve as a Trustee (2+ years) with years of experience in the digital technology field as a project manager

  • Supports MC4
  1. CTO of a previous company where I worked for 2+ years

Mandatory Criteria

MC1 – Leadership in Company Growth (Fintech)

  • Demonstrates technical leadership and impact during early-stage growth
  • Evidence includes documentation ownership and GitHub contribution history showing me as a top contributor prior to a $3.7m pre-seed raise.

MC2 – Invited Speaking Engagement (Google Developer Group)

  • Invited speaker at a GDG event
  • Evidence includes official invitation, event materials, social media promotion by GDG, and photos of me on the podium from the session.

MC3 – Technical Judge & Control Systems Advisor

  • Selected as a technical judge/advisor at First Challenge UK which is a large national innovation Robotics competition for young adults in STEM since early 2025
  • Evidence includes onboarding communications, official credentials, participation records, pictures from the events and thank-you correspondence

MC4 – Leadership in a Youth-Focused NGO

  • Designed and led a mentorship programme; later appointed Trustee
  • Evidence includes Trustee role invitation and confirmation email, mentorship records, programme publications, event materials, and formal CAC documentation confirming trustee role

Optional Criterion 2 – Work Beyond Day-to-Day Role

OC2a – Career Mentorship (Virtual)

  • Mentorship through a professional mentoring programme for University of East London
  • Evidence includes programme onboarding, session activity logs from mentees, and participation certificate.

OC2b – Open-Source Contributions

  • Contributions across multiple high-impact projects:
    • Project 1: ~1.6k stars and 943k downloads weekly (2 merged feature PRs)
    • Project 2: ~16k stars and 36m downloads weekly (3 merged enhancement PRs)
    • Project 3: ~1.1k stars (Added Project 4 to the repository)
    • Project 4: Independently published open-source TypeScript AI package used in OC4 to NPM registry (~1k downloads)

OC2c – Technical Mentorship & Community Teaching (In-Person)

In-person program designed to support individuals from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds in transitioning into tech.

  • Teaching, code reviews, debugging support, and trainee check-ins
  • Evidence includes onboarding, session photos, and community recognition messages
  • Slack pictures thanking me for my contribution for previous courses

Optional Criterion 4 – Academic & Research Contribution

OC4 – IEEE Peer-Reviewed Conference Presentation (Virtual)

  • Lead author and presenter of a peer-reviewed paper
  • Evidence includes published paper, acceptance communications, conference schedule, presentation screenshots, and slides
  • Supporting letter from a professor in Computer Networking, Cybersecurity, Network Security who served as both reviewer and session host

Questions I’d Love Feedback On

  1. Clarity & Structure – Is this easy to follow from a reviewer’s perspective?
  2. Strength & Relevance – Does this convincingly meet Mandatory + Optional criteria for Exceptional Promise?
  3. Gaps or Improvements – Anything you’d recommend strengthening, removing, or repositioning?
  4. Do you consider the NGO founder worthy of writing the recommendation letter? They have worked in the digital technology sector

Thanks so much in advance for your time and insights :pray:

@Akash_Joshi @Raphael

2

Hi @Moses_Odutusin, As a backend software engineer with 4+ years of experience, you’re eligible for the Promise pathway. However, when you say “4+ years of professional experience,” it’s important to clarify whether you had additional non professional tech experience before this period. If you did, Tech Nation may still count it, but keep in mind that even at that, they will assess your evidence against the Promise standard. If the experience is unclear or inconsistent, it can weaken your application narrative.

LORs
Your recommenders seem generally fine, but the “Founder of a youth‑focused NGO” is not ideal. LOR authors must be recognised experts in the tech sector, not the non profit sector. I’d also suggest checking their LinkedIn profile to ensure their career history aligns with what Tech Nation expects.

MC
Your GitHub contribution history showing you as a top contributor before a $3.7m pre seed raise is strong, but only if you can provide clear evidence of the funding.

Regarding GDG events, these are respected community events, but they are not considered top‑tier tech conferences or events. If your invitation letter states that you were a keynote speaker or domain expert, and you spoke to at least 100 tech professionals, then this can still be useful evidence.

Your role as a technical judge/advisor at First Challenge UK may be acceptable, but it’s limited. The participants are not your peers, they appear not to be in a field of specialisation related to the digital technology sector. So, see it this way, judging college students as a professional may not be seen as something big, but judging the work of your peers or professionals like you, shows recognition of your value, since it’s with STEM, with the right narrative, this can work for OC2 as contribution, as MC is focused on recognition.

Leading a mentorship programme, programme publications, event materials, or CAC trustee documents do not clearly show how you were recognised for leading a mentorship programme.

OC2
Virtual mentorship is weak, Tech Nation now expects mentorship to be in person. Your open source contributions are good, showing continuous activity, adoption, and meaningful downloads. In person technical mentorship or community teaching can work if you demonstrate clear impact not just photos. A supporting reference letter can strengthen this too.

OC4
A virtual paper presentation alone is not strong, but an IEEE publication can complement it. An endorsement letter from a professor is useful, but if their field is unrelated to yours, it weakens the endorsement. Also consider whether the topic of your paper aligns with your professional profile. For example, if you’re a software engineer but your paper is on networking or cybersecurity, the mismatch can weaken your narrative unless you can clearly connect it to your work.

Overall, you’ve put together a strong set of evidence and a solid narrative, you just need to refine few areas.

All the best.

1 Like