Review Request for Validation

Stage 1
1

Hello everyone :wave:,
I’m finalising my Tech Nation Global Talent Visa application (Digital Technology route) and would appreciate feedback from the alumni here on my evidence grouping and balance across MC and OC.

Below is my current mapping — please let me know if it looks aligned with the 2025 guidance or if you’d recommend any swaps or strengthening.

Mandatory Criteria (MC)

:one: Keycloak Open Source Contribution

My PR (#41505) fixing a verification email flood bug was merged into Red Hat’s Keycloak core branch and publicly acknowledged by maintainers. This demonstrates global peer recognition and contribution to a world-class open-source project.

:two: Public Technical Contributions – Stack Overflow & Medium

Over 11 years of consistent public engagement: 25 answers and 13 questions on Stack Overflow (thousands of views) and two Medium articles on enterprise SSO (Spring Boot SPNEGO & WSO2 IWA). Shows thought leadership and technical knowledge sharing.

Optional Criterion 1 – Innovation

:three: Flutterwave BVN Consent API

Led the design and implementation of a new compliance service integrated with NIBSS for BVN verification. Reduced onboarding verification time from minutes to seconds. Published API now available on Flutterwave Developer Docs.

:four: Access Solutions Impact Statement

Built and deployed the company’s first PTSP-certified POS system, offline-first agency banking app, and digital revenue collection systems for Lagos and Abuja. Enabled Access Solutions to enter Nigeria’s regulated payments space.

Optional Criterion 2 – Significant Technical / Commercial Contribution

:five: Police Crime & Incident Database (NPF)

Led backend design of a national biometric crime system linking 36 states + FCT. Reduced record retrieval from days to seconds. Publicly acknowledged by the Nigerian Police Force via social-media posts.

:six: Flutterwave Impact Statement (Letter by Product Lead)

Verified measurable impact (+30% reliability, +25% faster onboarding, 10K+ monthly secure uploads). Highlights company-wide improvements in compliance and engineering quality.

Optional Criterion 3 – Contribution to the Sector Outside Occupation

:seven: Mentorship & Community Contribution

Mentored interns and junior devs internally (two transitioned to full-time roles) and volunteered with Africode (Pan-African mentorship program). Coached mentees through real projects and capstones.

:eight: High Salary Evidence

Verified salary packages: national average (Payscale 2025). 5–7× above market, demonstrating recognition and value for technical expertise.

My Questions

  1. Does this distribution of 2 MC + 6 OC evidences (spanning OC1, OC2, OC3) look well balanced for the Exceptional Talent route?
  2. Are there any evidences you’d recommend switching between categories (e.g., moving Police DB to Innovation or Mentorship under OC2)?
  3. Do the chosen combinations provide enough breadth and depth across leadership, innovation, and impact?
  4. Any red flags or areas reviewers might find overlapping or weak?

:pray: Any feedback would be hugely appreciated, especially from anyone who’s been endorsed recently under the product-led / backend engineering pathway.
Thanks in advance!

2

Hi @smoshie25 you have a few promising elements in your set, but the overall application currently appears weak and misaligned with Tech Nation’s guidelines.

First, it seems there may be a misunderstanding of the structure:
You must provide 3 Letters of Recommendation (LORs) and evidences for the Mandatory Criterion (MC) plus only two Optional Criteria (OCs) — you cannot attempt more than two OCs. Each criterion requires at least two unique evidences.

Please review the official guidelines here:
:link: Tech Nation Visa Guide

Mandatory Criterion (MC):

  1. What is the public acknowledgement referred to here? Industry recognition must come from a leading external tech body or award, not an internal or informal source.
  2. “25 answers in 11 years” is a very low metric, and Medium articles are invalid as evidences per the official guidelines.

Optional Criterion 1 (OC1):

  • Was this part of your regular job? To qualify, you must show:
    • What was innovative about the work
    • Your specific contribution to the innovation
    • The market traction or measurable impact of the innovation
    • Third-party validation confirming your contribution and its results
      Currently, both evidences lack these elements, making the innovation and its impact unclear.

Optional Criterion 2 (OC2) & Optional Crtierion 3 (OC3):

OC2 is meant to show contributions to the sector outside of your job, while OC3 focuses on technical or commercial contributions. Please review and correct this mix-up.

  • Was the national biometric project part of your job? If yes, it cannot qualify for OC2. You need to include relevant code samples, architecture details, and a letter from a senior executive confirming your contribution and its quantified impact on core company metrics.
  • The second point listed is part of the first evidence and should not be treated as a separate one.
  • Social media posts and informal recognitions are invalid evidences.
  • Internal mentoring is not accepted — only structured mentorship programs with formal selection and documented impact qualify.
  • High salary does not belong in OC3; it may be used in MC instead.
3

Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback — that really helped me see where I misunderstood the structure.

Quick background: I’m a Principal Backend Engineer with 10+ years’ experience in Spring Boot, Identity & Access Management, and fintech systems.
I currently lead backend engineering at Hardcore Biometrics Systems (Police Crime & Incident Database) and previously worked with Flutterwave on compliance-driven fintech products.

I already have my three LORs confirmed:

  • CTO, Hardcore Biometrics (Principal Software developer for a top US tech Company with over 30 years of experience )
  • Head of Postman, India (worked with MAANG companies, over 25 years experience)
  • Training Manager ITF Nigeria ( was head of ICT when I did my first ICT training, a collaboration between Industrial Training Fund Nigeria and ITE Singapore program)

I’ve now realigned my evidences to the proper 1 MC + 2 OCs (6 total) format:

MC – Recognition as a Leader
• Keycloak Open Source PR #41505 – merged into Red Hat’s Keycloak, publicly acknowledged by maintainers.
• High Salary Evidence (Flutterwave) /(Hardcore) ≈ 5–7× market average showing industry recognition.

OC1 – Innovation in Digital Technology
• Flutterwave BVN Consent API – new CBN/NIBSS-compliant product; onboarding time cut from minutes to seconds.
• Access Solutions Impact – PTSP-certified POS integration + granted the company access into the fintech space.

OC2 – Significant Technical / Commercial Contribution
• Police Crime & Incident Database – national biometric system (36 states + FCT); CTO letter and official NPF references.
• Flutterwave Impact Statement – Product Lead letter confirming +30 % reliability / +25 % faster onboarding.

I’ll reference my Stack Overflow / Medium activity and Africode mentorship as supporting context, not standalone evidence.

I understand that the Flutterwave Impact statement from the Product Lead might share some content on the BVN API, but it contains more work done while I was there.

:point_right: Could you please confirm if this new grouping and structure look aligned with Tech Nation’s expectations? Any small tweaks on evidence strength or LOR positioning would be great!