Exceptional Talent application- Request for Review

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I’m in the final stages of preparing my application for the Global Talent Visa under the Exceptional Promise route and would really appreciate your feedback on my 10 supporting documents and a few specific questions. I’m a UX Research Manager based in Iran, currently working at the largest digital company in the country.

:page_facing_up: My 10 Supporting Documents:

:white_check_mark: Mandatory Criteria – Recognition

  1. UXR Manager at current company
    Leading a team of 6 researchers and managing strategic, national-scale projects.
    Evidence: Org chart screenshot, internal chat, LinkedIn profile, role confirmation letter.

  2. Compensation & Market Benchmark
    My salary is approx. 2x higher than the market average for my role.
    Evidence: Translated local benchmark reports (JobVision) + contract.

:purple_square: Optional Criteria – Broader Work Outside Occupation

  1. 1:1 Mentorship for local researchers
    Conducted structured mentorship with templates, research reviews, and regular sessions.
    Evidence: Screenshots of sessions, shared research docs, summary of mentee engagements.

  2. UX Bootcamp with Online Institute
    Designed and ran a paid UX Research bootcamp (~60 students including PMs, Designers, and Researchers).
    Evidence: Course syllabus, screenshots, participant feedback.

  3. Telegram Channel on UX Research
    Built a 1K+ subscriber community to share translated UX research content in Farsi.
    Evidence: Channel screenshots, content examples, subscriber analytics.

  4. UX Webinar (130+ live viewers)
    Invited speaker for one of the largest Persian product communities, topic: UX Research for PMs.
    Evidence: YouTube link, event poster, engagement metrics.

:blue_square: Optional Criteria – Significant Impact in the Field

  1. Company-wide OKR Leadership
    Led official OKR to improve UX, ran workshops, synthesized pain points, created strategic documents.
    Evidence: Output docs (Confluence), screenshots, possible letter from CPO.

  2. Research Operations Optimization
    Redesigned processes and templates → 3x more research delivered without new hires.
    Evidence: Yearly performance report shared with managers.

  3. Accessibility Study
    Led inclusive research for users with visual/hearing impairments.
    Evidence: Interview screenshots, final report, possible letter from CPO.

  4. Hackathon – 3rd Place Among Holding Companies
    Ranked 3rd out of 20 teams from 8 portfolio companies with the same investor group.
    Evidence: Photos, recognition letter.

:speech_balloon: Additional note:
I also spoke on the main stage of a major national UX event (~100+ audience), sharing my experience in user research (20-minute talk).

:question:Questions:

:pushpin: 1. Salary & Market Benchmark

  • As Iran has a much lower salary baseline than the UK, how can I effectively demonstrate that my compensation is considered high locally?
  • Is it acceptable to use translated benchmark reports (e.g., JobVision) as part of my evidence?

:pushpin: 2. Hackathon Eligibility

  • Would a hackathon across companies with the same investor group (but not public/open) qualify under Optional Criterion 2?

:pushpin: 3. Recommendation Letters

  • Can both my CPO and Design Director from the same company write letters, as they know me from different angles?
  • Can I use a recommendation letter from a former CTO I worked with more than 5 years ago (e.g., 5 years + 3 months ago)?
  • Two of my ex-colleagues now work in international companies at senior level. Can they write recommendation letters? (They’re not managers, but have worked closely with me.)

:pushpin: 4. General Balance

  • Does my current evidence portfolio seem well-distributed and sufficient for the Exceptional Promise route?

Thanks in advance for your insights and support :pray:
Happy to revise based on your feedback!

2

@Francisca_Chiedu
@Jerahmeel_Madu
Hello My firends, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the proposed organization of my application documents.

3

Hi @Pooria_Hassanzadeh

MC is weak. Managing a large team and role confirmation doesn’t meet the criteria. Salary evidence is insufficient and the weakest to prove MC independently.

In OC2, mentorship needs to be part of a structured program with selection of mentees. In addition to showing what you did, it’s very imp to show its impact on the sector.

OC3 needs to show impact of your contribution in quantified company metrics. Just handling large projects doesn’t meet the criteria.

1 Like
4

Thanks a lot @pahuja for your helpful feedback :pray:

I’d really appreciate your thoughts on a few clarifications and refinements:

1. Mandatory Criteria (MC)
I have two questions here:
A):, would a reference letter from the CPO or Design Director explicitly stating why I was chosen as a manager, and the impact I’ve made, strengthen my MC case?

B) Are there any other types of evidence you would recommend to strengthen this further, beyond org charts and compensation?

2. Optional Criteria 2 (OC2) – Mentorship

I’ve mentored 3 individual researchers in 1:1 structured sessions (over 3 to 6 months each). These mentorships included:

  • Mentee selection through interviews
  • Session structure with research templates and deliverables
  • Career outcomes (e.g., one got hired, two received strong feedback in their companies)
  • Written feedback and reflections from mentees

Would you consider this structured and impactful enough for OC2?

3. Optional Criteria 3 (OC3) – Impact

A) Would using 2–3 key company projects be acceptable if I can clearly show their impact, each of them be as one evidance for OC3?

B) For each project, I have supporting evidence such as research reports and letters from the CPO or Product Directors explaining the value and metrics. Would that be sufficient?

4. Additional Evidence

Do you think other activities such as:

  • Speaking at a webinar with 130+ live attendees
  • Managing a 1K-subscriber UX Research Telegram channel
  • Earning 3rd place in a hackathon across 8 companies

…could meaningfully support OC2 or OC3 if backed by visuals and letters?

5. Recommendation Letters

Any advice on strengthening my recommendation letters would be much appreciated too.

Thanks again for your time and support :pray:
Pooria Hassanzadeh

5

Hi @Pooria_Hassanzadeh

MC
No - stating why you were chosen as a manager is not what the criteria is about. The letter needs to talk about how your work positions you as a leader or potential to lead in the digital technology sector.

Please reach the guidelines thoroughly for the examples of evidences.

OC2: was this a self structure and selection in 1:1 setting created by you? If so,no. Mentorship should be part of s structured mentorship program.

OC3: yes until your letters validate the quantified impact and your contribution to it along with some third party evidence to validate claims.

Additional: these are all support evidences but not significant enough to stand success towards any criteria on their own.

Reco letters and other: the quality and depth of content matters a lot more hence it’s not comprehensive to comment on LORs just basis outline.

6

Hey Pooria, some areas could be strengthened to better align with the Exceptional Promise route. For instance, while your salary is significantly higher than the local market average, the use of translated benchmark reports may require further validation to ensure clarity and credibility for the visa committee. As pahuja mentioned already, salary by itself is no longer relevant evidence for the criteria. Additionally, the hackathon evidence, while impressive, might need clarification on its eligibility under Optional Criterion 2, as it was not a public or open event. Hackathons are not really relevant for OC2 either.

The recommendation letters from your CPO and Design Director are valuable, but having both from the same company could be a reason for rejection. Try to diversify your sources for letters, especially for the main LoRs. Similarly, letters from ex-colleagues in senior roles at international companies could strengthen your application, provided they can speak to your impact and contributions in detail.

Finally, ensure all evidence is clearly labeled and organized to facilitate easy review by the committee. What do you think?