action to bring itself into compliance with the Accreditation Criteria within a time frame specified by [ACICS] after the institution has been notified that it is not in compliance.” J.A. 287, 593. Over the course of seven months, ACICS conducted two site visits, repeatedly informed Bristol of its deficiencies, gave Bristol multiple opportunities to respond to those deficiencies, asked Bristol to explain why its renewal application should not be denied based on its remaining areas of noncompliance, and provided Bristol a written explanation for denying its application for renewal of accreditation based on the 24 unresolved violations it identified, none of which Bristol has contested. Nothing more was required to satisfy due process. See Prof'l Massage Training Ctr., 781 F.3d at 174 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, because the Accreditation
holding that defendants denial of employees claim for failure to provide objective evidence was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on a mischaracterization of the evidence employee submitted holding that accrediting agencys denial of schools application for reaccreditation was not arbitrary and capricious because the school was afforded ample notice that it was not in compliance with the accreditation standards and numerous opportunities to remedy identified deficiencies holding that the circuit court was not authorized to overturn state agencys decision where the sanction was lawful authorized and within the discretion of the agency and it was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that cab must specifically articulate any deficiencies in charter schools application so charter school can address deficiencies in amended or new application