of N.M., 1976-NMCA-039, ¶ 7; see also § 10-7E-8(A) (creating the PELRB). The PEBA does not expressly delegate any authority to the PELRB to hear complaints involving grandfathered public employers. But, by implication, the PELRB has the power to determine in the first place whether a public employer or aspects of its labor relations system meet the conditions.for grandfather status. See Deming Firefighters Local 4521, 2007-NMCA-069, ¶ 14 (“[T]he PELRB has ¶ 6 (“[Because the PEBA does not apply, the [PELRB] does not have jurisdiction.”), We therefore agree with the district court’s conclusion that the PELRB did not have jurisdiction to hear AFSCME’s complaints and that it did not act “in accordance with law” when it remanded the complaints to the LMRB. See Regents, 1998-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 (<HOLDING>). Complaints cannot be “remanded” to a tribunal
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 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  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 court may set aside lsc decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or are not based on substantial evidence holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law