Use records showing the employee’s substantive contribution to the company’s service, product or processes in international work. Customer familiarity alone is less informative than evidence of how the employee solved a company-specific problem.
Distinguish relationships from knowledge
A manager can describe the employee’s role in adapting a process, resolving a difficult implementation or transferring lessons from foreign operations. Support that account with selected work and training evidence. Customer letters may corroborate facts but should not merely praise communication skills.
Explain the connection to the proposed U.S. duties without inventing results or market exclusivity. Distinguish relationships from knowledge, since customer familiarity is frequently offered as evidence and it establishes something different.
A record of who the employee knows shows they have relationships; what the case requires is evidence of what they know about this organization and its interests. Choose documents accordingly: technical specifications the employee prepared or applied, regulatory submissions they contributed to, market requirements they documented, product adaptations they specified, training they delivered internally about the market. Correspondence with customers can support the account where it shows the employee resolving substantive questions rather than merely maintaining contact.
Provide a short explanation with each document stating which proposition it supports, and be prepared to acknowledge where the value to the company is genuinely relational rather than knowledge-based.