Feedback Request for GTV Application

Hello, I am in the process of gathering evidence for the Global Talent visa and would greatly appreciate some feedback. I am a backend developer with about 15 years experience working in some leading FAANG tech companies. Please see my evidence below, any guidance on this would be much appreciated.

Letters of recommendation:

  1. LOR from the Director of Engineering for my current job of a previous team(FAANG company).
  2. LOR from the Director of Engineering from my previous job(a virtualisation giant).
  3. LOR from the Principal Engineering Manager from my previous job (referee is currently in a FAANG company). He was my manager in my previous job.

Mandatory Criteria:
4. Employment Offer Letter + RSU offer letter + Pay slip.
5. Evidence of the product launch(new articles) with my contributions of my previous team in current job.
6. Peer Feedback screenshots for the product launch I supported
7. LOR from my manager of my current job of previous team for the product I am sharing evidences

Optional Criteria 1 (Innovation):
8. Evidence of the product(worked in previous job) which was a long standing problem for customers and was solved innovatively in cloud space world + internal tech conference paper presented + news articles of the product.
9. Promotion Letter for contributions for the product
10. LOR from the Product manager for the same product of my previous job.
11. LOR from the architect for the same product of my previous job.

Optional Criteria 3 (Impact):
12. Evidence of the product launch(new articles) with my contributions of my previous team in current job + impact of number of users + savings in terms of millions of dollars.
13. LOR from the tech lead for the same product of my previous team.
14. Appraisal letters of previous two years showing the impact of my contributions.

@igortsk @hsafra - Can you please help with your feedback? Thanks so much

In the mandatory criterion, it is important not to “slip” into advertising for the company. It is very desirable to find public mentions of your name (direct or indirect). It is your leadership that is evaluated in this criterion. For example, if screenshots of colleagues’ reviews do not contain your name, it may be useless. However, a faang job offer letter might work. Nevertheless, I recommend trying to strengthen this criterion.

8. public information about the product is good. Make sure that public sources talk specifically about innovation. Also, don’t forget that you need to prove the economic effect that the product has had on the market. Besides, it is very important that you explicitly show that you have led the product. Otherwise, without patents, you will probably not be credited for this criterion.
Additionally, I would like to say that the criterion is very subjective. It is important to explain innovativeness very well in words.

OC3 looks good

Thanks so much @igortsk . I am clear on mandatory/OC3. For my OC1, I have screenshots of paper presented in technical conference with my name. But the public article/sources of the product doesnt have my name/mentions it innovative.The product being innovative is mentioned on my LORs though with my name/leadership/contributions.

@niks250186 OC1: you’ll have to make it very clear how you were the one to innovate, otherwise the assessors might decide it’s a group effort. Explain what you did, how it was innovative and back it up with evidence.

MC: I think you may want more external evidence. Most of what I see is from your workplace and they tend to look for outside validation

@igortsk @hsafra - Just one more question. I have got all my LORs in the same format like

  • Company logo at the top

  • About author

  • About company

  • How the author knows me

  • Projects author have worked with me

  • How I can help UK?

  • Signature

  • Date

  • Phone Number

  • Email ID

  • Linked In Profile Link

  • Resume

Is this still considered templating?

I would believe it depends on how the middle sections looks. The logo on top and everything from the signature down are standard for all official looking letters so I wouldn’t worry about that.
Do your recommenders follow the same structure in the “About author” to “help UK” sections? Do they use similar language?

Thanks @hsafra for the reply. The structure is almost same but the content is totally different. Also the LORs are signed with docusign having info about different IP address and official email ID

ask yourself a question: can these letters be called templates or can it be assumed that they were written according to a template? If the answer is no, then everything is correct