I am applying for the Tech Nation UK Global Talent Visa under the Exceptional Talent route as a Product Manager. I am submitting my documents and evidence for review and would appreciate your feedback on how best to arrange and organize them.
I hold a PhD in Machine Learning (ML) applications for finance and have a track record in ML, FinTech, and risk analysis. My expertise lies in developing and managing software solutions that enhance financial sector processes and risk management. I am the co-founder of a FinTech company, where I have led product development, innovation, and partnerships. Additionally, I have evaluated ML applications, spoken at digital tech conferences, registered a digital product at the national level, and received endorsements for the Australia Global Talent Visa and the Canada Start-up Visa for FinTech.
As a Software Product Manager, I plan to provide the following evidence:
Mandatory Criteria (MC):
Proof of co-founding a FinTech company (Articles of Association + Gazette), holding a 30%+ share.
Evidence of endorsement for the Canada Start-up Visa Program by a designated Canadian incubator (Letter of Support) based on a submitted and approved business plan.
Evidence of endorsement by the Australian Computer Society (ACS) for the Australia Global Talent Visa in Fintech sector.
Proof of speaking at a digital FinTech conference (invitation + participation), which had 1,200+ attendees and a merit-based selection process.
OC1:
Reference Letter 1 from Client 1, confirming the purchase of Software 1 and detailing my contributions to its innovation/development as a Product Manager.
Screenshots of my code and simple interface for Software 1.
Screenshots of my High-Level Architecture and Data Flow diagrams for Software 1.
OC3:
Reference Letter 2 from Client 2, confirming the purchase of Software 1 and detailing my business contributions (impacts) as a Product Manager.
Reference Letter 3 from Client 3, confirming the purchase contract for Software 2 and outlining my role and contributions to its innovation/development as well as business contributions (impacts) as a Product Manager.
Screenshots of my Architecture diagram, code, and interface for Software 2.
I appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
I also have the following additional evidence and would like your opinion on whether any of them are more suitable replacements for the above-listed items:
A one-year paid advisory contract with a non-tech financial organization, assessing the work of others in Machine Learning applications in risk analysis seeking support or collaboration with the organization.
An invitation to speak on RegTech (Regulatory Technology) at a panel in a conference, though it does not specify the selection criteria or audience size.
Evidence of the registration of an intellectual property (IP) titled âDigitalization Plan for Financial Industry Processesâ with a local/national registration organization in December 2020. This IP has not been commercialized and implemented.
An email received from a Canadian Angel Investor, announcing me that a few investors have shown interest in my company (Business Plan), which is the subject matter of MC2. This email does not provide specific details such as how much funding, etc.
Which criteria would these evidence support?
Would any of these be more suitable than the previously listed evidence? If so, which one should be replaced?
#2 and 3 in MC arenât valid evidences for TN - they are your endorsements for other country visas. This doesnât establish you as a leader in digital sector industry.
In OC1, all evidences are for one work itself. Each evidence needs to establish innovation and your contribution to it.
In OC3, you need to establish impact through quantified metrics of your work. This is focused on impact and not just your work.
The last 3 evidences seem like they will fit in MC and better evidence than your visa endorsements of other countries.
Hi pahuja,
Thank you for your clear explanations. I truly appreciate it.
I understand, and I will consider MC-2 and MC-3 as invalid evidence.
Regarding OC1, I would like to clarify that, although all the evidence pertains to one project, they represent different contributions and roles of it (Managing, Coding, Designing, etc.). Evidence 5 (Reference Letter 1) highlights the sale of Software 1 and details my innovations in its development. Evidence 6, which includes the code and interface for Software 1, affirms that the software was developed and coded by me. While Evidence 5 makes a claim, Evidence 6 and 7 serve to validate that claim.
My main question is whether you mean that each piece of evidence must independently and separately demonstrate a distinct project or work?
As for OC3, it clearly establishes the impact through quantified metrics of my work. Reference Letters 2 and 3 provide detailed metrics reflecting that impact.
Thank you once again for your insightful comment.
I would appreciate it if you could review and correct my clarifications.
Hi Aseman, your MC appears strong with multiple international endorsements and conference speaking. The Canada Start-up Visa endorsement and Australian ACS approval demonstrate cross-border recognition. The FinTech conference participation with 1200+ attendees meets the high-profile event requirement.
The OC1 evidence shows clear technical leadership through architecture diagrams and client references. OC3 business impact letters from clients align well with demonstrating commercial contributions. The unpaid IP registration and vague investor interest email lack measurable impact and are weaker than your current selections.
The RegTech panel invitation could strengthen Mandatory Criteria if you can obtain attendance numbers or selection criteria documentation. The paid advisory contract demonstrates recognition as an evaluator but would better support Optional Criteria 2 (contributions beyond occupation). Consider replacing one OC3 client letter with this if emphasizing external validation over direct client impact.
Current evidence selection is well-structured. Prioritize documents showing third-party validation and quantifiable outcomes. Ensure each client letter explicitly states how your personal contributions (not team efforts) drove specific business results like revenue growth or efficiency gains.
Hi Akash_Joshi,
I sincerely appreciate the time youâve spent providing such valuable advice.
I included the Canada Start-up Visa endorsement (Evidence 2) and Australian ACS approval (Evidence 3) in the MC, assuming they could demonstrate cross-border recognition, as Tech Nation might consider them. However, I noticed that pahuja has a different perspective on these evidences (refer to the post above).
Like you, I believe the invitation to speak at the RegTech event (Additional Evidence 2) is weak, as the evidence doesnât include the audience size. Additionally, the IP registration (Additional Evidence 3) also seems weak due to its lack of commercialization.
While it is possible to include the paid advisory contract (Additional Evidence 1) in OC2, I donât currently have enough supporting evidence to meet the minimum of two required evidences for OC2.
I should mention that the software I referred to (Software 1) is a proprietary software developed by our FinTech company, which sells its license. It is not publicly available, so only the clients who use it can provide feedback or attest to its functionality.
Absolutely. Each client letter will clearly outline not only the overall impact of the team and software on their business but also my personal contributions.