Hello everyone,
I’m in the early stages of preparing my Global Talent visa application and would appreciate your expert feedback on my evidence strategy. I’m targeting the Exceptional Promise route, but I’m also considering Exceptional Talent given my career progression, and I’m keen to hear your thoughts on which route best fits my profile.
My Background:
I hold an MSc in Data Science, where I won the ‘Best Graduating Student’ award. My career has progressed rapidly, culminating in my current role as a Lead Data Engineer at a major UK organisation.
My Proposed Evidence Strategy:
Mandatory Criteria (MC):
Significant Contribution: I will submit a reference letter from a Senior Director. This will detail my direct technical and leadership contributions to a publicly known, multi-billion pound technology transformation program. The letter will focus on my role in modernizing critical data infrastructure and its quantifiable impact.
Career Progression: I will provide employment and promotion letters for my rapid promotions from Data Engineer to Lead Data Engineer within 20 months. This will be supported by a recommendation from my Head of Data, who will explain how my contributions and leadership earned me this fast-tracked career path.
High Earning: I will provide my employment contract and payslips as proof of a salary that significantly exceeds the UK median for my experience level, validating my value to the business.
Optional Criteria (OC):
Optional Criterion 1 (OC1) - Innovation:
Evidence: A recommendation letter from my Senior Vice President of Technology will highlight my innovative contributions to our data architecture.
Supporting Documents:
A professional write-up with system architecture diagrams detailing the novel cloud-native data pipelines I designed, explaining how they improved efficiency, scalability, and security.
An activity log from our company’s GitHub repository showing a high volume of commits and significant code contributions to key projects, providing a verifiable record of my technical output.
Evidence: A recommendation letter from a senior business leader will attest to the commercial impact of my work.
Supporting Document: A detailed project report will explain how I led a technical solution that not only slashed data processing runtimes from over 48 hours to under 4 hours but also resulted in a verifiable annual cost saving of over £100,000 by replacing a proprietary software license.
My specific questions for the community:
Given that I have access to recommendations from senior leaders (SVP, Senior Director, Head of Data) and my work on a globally recognized project. Does my profile seem strong enough?
Does the evidence for OC3 (the cost savings and runtime reduction) seem strong and well-documented enough? Any tips on presenting this compellingly?
Are there any critical pieces of evidence I might be missing, or other criteria I should be considering?
Thank you for your valuable feedback.
Your evidence strategy looks solid overall, but there are three critical areas that need attention. First, your company’s definition as “product-led” must be crystal clear - Tech Nation frequently rejects applications where they can’t establish this. Many applicants I’ve seen get rejected because their evidence doesn’t explicitly demonstrate how their employer qualifies as a product-led digital technology company rather than a consulting or services firm.
Your rapid career progression from Data Engineer to Lead Data Engineer in 20 months is impressive and aligns well with Exceptional Promise criteria. However, make sure your reference letters don’t just mention the promotion timeline but quantify the expanded scope of responsibility and technical leadership. I’ve reviewed applications where promotions alone weren’t enough - you need to show how your role fundamentally changed and the measurable impact you delivered at each level.
The cost savings figure of £100,000 annually is excellent for OC3, but ensure you have robust third-party verification beyond just reference letters. Include system architecture diagrams, project documentation, or performance metrics that an external assessor can validate. Many strong applications fail because the claims, while impressive, lack sufficient objective evidence to back them up.
Your choice of Exceptional Promise over Exceptional Talent seems appropriate given your career stage, but consider that your evidence needs to show “potential to be a leading talent” rather than established leadership. Focus your narrative on emerging recognition and growing influence rather than claiming current sector leadership. The high-profile project involvement and senior-level references you mentioned could work well here if positioned correctly.
Hi @Ayoola17 How did you get on with this? I have a similar profile as you. I was hoping we could connect and work together if you’re still in the process or provide some helpful tips if your application is through and successful.
@Akash_Joshi Very useful insights. Do you provide services for GTV?
MC1: ensure the letter also extends your contribution to how it has been useful in the industry.
MC2&3: can be clubbed since career progression is not really a valid evidence on its own. Instead showcase another work project where you contributed significantly and where you can show some industry impact/recognition.
Only letters and high salary are not sufficient for MC hence try to incorporate any other third party evidence you can.
OC1 ensure you show impact of innovation with market traction and success as well. Also it looks like this has pretty much one project supported by two docs?
OC3 similar to OC1, looks like one project work supported by letter plus self-claims? In your second document ensure it’s not just self claims but more comprehensive including architecture diagrams and proof of quantified impact in terms of company core metrics. Important for the letter also to incorporate this
As the most crucial part of OC3 is to demonstrate quantified impact.