as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill ... any migratory bird ... included in the terms of the [conventions between the United States and Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and Russia.]. 16 U.S.C. § 703. Although “the MBTA provides no private cause of action against the United States government to enforce its provisions, ... the law of this Circuit is clear: a plaintiff may sue a federal agency under the APA for violations of the MBTA.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Pirie, 191 F.Supp.2d at 175; see also Hill v. Norton, 275 F.3d at 103; Humane Society of the United States v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The APA requires courts to set aside agency
holding that cis rejection of visa renewal application was not arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that determination of whether someone is an employee under the adea must be made in accordance with common law agency principles holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law  holding that federal agency action in violation of mbta violates the otherwise not in accordance with law provision of the apa