the present case, River Street does not contend that the AAO acted outside the scope of authority delegated to it by statute in deciding to not credit River Street for depreciation amounts deducted from its net income. There is no question that the AAO has discretion to decide how to weigh relevant evidence in assessing a prospective employer’s ability to pay a proffered wage. Rather, River Street claims that in departing from its prior precedents without explanation, the AAO exercised its undisputed discretion in this area in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This type of inquiry is governed by section 706(2)(a). Whitman, 321 F.3d at 324. Moreover, this is the standard that this Court has recently applied in reviewing discretionary decisions by CIS. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 148 (<HOLDING>). Thus, we will proceed to determine whether
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 rejection of a proposed strickland expert was not a prejudicial abuse of discretion recognizing that a court may reverse the pelrbs actions where those actions are arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion    not supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that cis rejection of visa renewal application was not arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law