the forum State.”). TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace Eur. Grp. Ltd., 488 F.3d at 1287-88. Thus, to establish specific personal jurisdiction that satisfies due process, a plaintiff must present evidence of “three salient factors that together indicate ‘purposeful direction’: (a) an intentional action ... that was (b) expressly aimed at the forum state ... with (c) knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state.” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d at 1239-40 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court of the United States has held, however, that the mere foreseeability of harm occurring in a particular forum will not support a finding of minimum contacts. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)(<HOLDING>). In Roberts v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 100 N.M.
holding that although an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose thus indicating that it is foreseeable that a particular automobile may cause injury in a forum state  foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that choiceoflaw provisions are alone insufficient to establish jurisdiction although they can reinforce a deliberate affiliation with the forum state and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there holding ejven though it is foreseeable that injury may arise by the negligent issuance of a credit card foreseeability alone does not give rise to duty