Exceptional Talent - Senior Software Engineer with 7 YOE - Profile and Documents Checklist review

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I hope you’re doing well. I’m reaching out with a sincere request for help, as I’m currently feeling quite overwhelmed and unsure about parts of my Global Talent Visa application.

I’m an experienced Software Engineer with 7 years of experience at a Fortune 500 product-led company, and I’m applying under the Exceptional Talent route. I’m completely new to this process and preparing everything on my own, without any professional support.

3 LORs (Letter of Recommendations) :

  • CEO of my previous company. (with letterhead)
  • CTO of my same previous company. (with letterhead)
  • Software Engineering Manager from current company. (without letterhead)

Mandatory Criteria:

Technical Leadership & Product Impact- Project A

  • I led the development of a flagship mobile application at my current organization, which has achieved millions of downloads on the Google Play Store and is among the most widely used apps in the United States. Evidence includes Git commit history, peer-reviewed code contributions, and internal communications (e.g., Slack messages) showcasing my leadership role and peer recognition.

Public Recognition of Work

  • The application I led is publicly available on the Google Play Store with millions of active users. A direct link to the Play Store listing is provided as evidence of its popularity and impact.

Community Recognition in Technical Forums

  • Recognized member of the “Mobile Collective Board” on Stack Overflow. Several of my questions have been featured in the “Most Asked Questions” section due to their relevance and high rating, underscoring my influence and visibility in the mobile development community.

Mentorship & Peer Acknowledgment

  • I have received professional endorsements on LinkedIn for my technical and leadership skills. Additionally, I have actively mentored junior developers within my organization, contributing to talent development and fostering a collaborative engineering culture.

Optional Criteria 1 (OC1):

Innovative Product Development & Revenue Growth

  • I led the end-to-end development of Project B, a product distinct from my other major contributions, which now has millions of users. This project introduced innovative solutions that significantly boosted company revenue post-launch. Supporting evidence includes Git commit history, peer reviews, Slack messages from senior leadership recognizing my efforts, and revenue graphs showing clear financial growth after the application went live on the Play Store.

Technical Architecture & Strategic Planning

  • I was responsible for defining and executing the system architecture for Project B, including detailed DST and C4 model diagrams. These artifacts outline the technical vision and innovative design strategy behind the product’s success.

Innovation Leading to Acquisition (Project C)

  • I was a core contributor to Project B, which played a significant role in my previous organization being acquired by a current Fortune 500 company. Evidence includes publicly available news clippings covering the acquisition. The Director also extended an invitation for me to rejoin the company post-acquisition.

Optional Criteria 3 (OC3):

Commercial & Technical Contribution – Project D

  • I led the development of Project D, an internal tool that has become one of the most commercially impactful initiatives within the organization. This tool replaced previously used third-party vendor solutions, enabling the company to save thousands of dollars in recurring costs and substantially improving internal efficiency. Evidence includes revenue graph demonstrating cost savings.

Technical Implementation & Leadership

  • My contributions are documented through Git commit history, where I authored and reviewed a significant portion of the codebase. I also conducted code reviews for team members, helping ensure code quality and knowledge sharing across the team.

Strategic Technical Planning & Documentation

  • I created comprehensive technical documentation and planning materials hosted on Confluence, including the development roadmap, architectural decisions, and system design via C4 and DST diagrams, demonstrating ownership of both execution and strategic design.

Organizational Recognition

  • My contributions have been formally recognized within the company. I am listed for an upcoming promotion, have received Bravo+ points for excellence, and was awarded a performance-based salary increment in line with company standards.

Unfortunately, my current organization has strict policies and is not supporting me with any reference/support letters or letters on official letterhead — not even for my third recommendation letter. This has left me quite stuck and unsure how to proceed.

I have a few questions and would be so grateful if someone could guide me:

  • Is it mandatory to have letterhead on all three recommendation letters? What if one letter is only signed and not on official letterhead — will it be rejected?
  • In the 10 evidences (Mandatory + Optional Criteria) — is it necessary to include supporting reference letters, or will all above evidence like GitHub commits, architecture diagrams, screenshots, and metrics be enough?
  • I have some architecture diagrams (C4, DST) that I personally created, but I’m worried: how does Tech Nation actually validate such diagrams as proof? Is there anything I should attach or annotate to make them more credible?

This process is very important for me, and I truly want to get it right. I would deeply appreciate any honest feedback, suggestions, or guidance.
@Francisca_Chiedu, @pahuja, @alexnk @Akash_Joshi @Maya @igortsk @Afolabi @Chaitanya_Bapat
@Anurag_Singh @howardhughes

2

Hi @deekshatakroo

You can strengthen your MC: app available on google play store is not really a recognition. It is just a backing support third party evidence of the app you developed. Linkedin recognition and internal mentoring is not valid as per guidelines.

In OC1, seems to be broken supporting evidences of the same work at Project B. You need more evidence of how can the revenue growth be attributed specifically to your contribution and not the whole teams work. If the evidences are largely self-claims, they will be flagged.

Again in OC3, how does the revenue graph in Project D attribute to your contribution? What is the evidence to support it? The second and 3rd evidences look like internal work projects - this criteria needs to show impact of work on quantified company metrics. The second two evidences are very weak to meet this criteria. Internal recognition is not considered valid per guidelines.

You will need to focus on how to provide strong letters & third-party evidences to attribute impact to your work specifically, think of projects that have clear company metrics impact and projects where you can show strong impact. As of now, the outline you have shared above is weak for success. Feel free to reach out on Linkedin for more detailed review.

Other Qs:

  • Letterhead is not mandatory but needs to be authentic
  • It is not necessary to include supporting ref letters however they are important parts to validate your self-claims through industry experts that add to strength of an application
  • You will have to add more third-party veriafable evidences, letters to back your claims strongly
1 Like
3
  1. At least two of the Letters of Recommendation need to be replaced.
    2. Regarding the mobile app — is there clear evidence that you were the key developer without whom the app would not have come to life? Only if such evidence exists, it can be considered valid.
    3. For the Mandatory Criteria (MC) — is there only one piece of evidence? I recommend having 3–4.
    4. For Optional Criteria 1 (OC1), is there also only one project? Innovations must be supported by public, independent sources or patents, along with a confident and simple explanation. I don’t see this in the overview you shared.

Answers to your questions:
1. Letterhead is not mandatory.
2. The 10 pieces of evidence don’t have to include recommendation letters.
3. For architectural diagrams, you should attach patents or public information (e.g., media articles) that at least indirectly mention how these diagrams contributed to the product’s innovation.

As I understand it currently, this case has close to zero chance of success. But any case can be improved. Read the official guide at least 10 times.

1 Like
4

I recommend diversifying your recommendation letters as two are from the same previous company. Having multiple letters of recommendation from the same organisation will definitely result in a rejection. The non-letterhead recommendation should include detailed contact information and preferably be signed/notarised.

Your evidence mix looks strong but needs clearer labeling based on the criteria you apply to. Combine Git commits with Jira tickets/meeting notes showing your leadership role. For architecture diagrams, add timestamps and reference them in peer reviews/retrospective documents to establish authenticity. This will strengthen your OC3

Prioritize third-party validation as much as possible everywhere… Avoid adding links - export all evidence and attach them to the evidence PDFs.