Christian Carrasco v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 6/10/26 (#201-26)

201-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02386-26
Agency Dkt. No. 003-01-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Christian Carrasco,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, State
Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioner challenges respondent Board of Examiners’ (Board) denial of his application for
a Teacher of Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility (CE) for failure to satisfy the cumulative
GPA requirement set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3. 	The Board moved to dismiss the matter,
claiming that petitioner did not allege that the denial was contrary to applicable statutory or
regulatory provisions. Although given the opportunity to do so, petitioner did not oppose the
motion to dismiss. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the denial of petitioner’s
application was required by the regulations because he failed to satisfy either the cumulative
GPA requirement or an exception thereto, and that the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.

2
As a threshold matter, a discussion of the applicable standard of review for petitions of
appeal filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3 is necessary. When there is a challenge to a determination made
by an office within the Department of Education (Department), the Commissioner is not required
to give deference to her staff but instead determines if the finding was legally appropriate. See
Nimczyk v. Dep’t of Educ., State Bd. of Exam’rs, Comm’r Decision No. 98-22 (May 16, 2022) and
Travisano v. Dept. of Educ., State Bd. of Exam’rs, Comm’r Decision No. 190-22 (Aug. 8, 2022)
(detailing the appropriate standard of review to be applied in matters filed against the Board
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3). Moreover, where the Department has limited the scope of review of
a subordinate office or division, it has done so by regulation, i.e. appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4
challenging a decision of the Board revoking or suspending a certificate, or a decision of the
School Ethics Commission.
In the Initial Decision, the ALJ framed the central legal issue as “whether Carrasco is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing to show that the respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously or
unreasonably.” Initial Decision, at 3. However, a decision by the Board denying an application
for a certificate is not entitled to the arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable standard of review
afforded to appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4. 	See Walder v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., State Bd. of
Exam’rs, Comm’r Decision No. 503-14 (Dec. 29, 2014) (finding that the Commissioner does not
give deference to a Board decision denying a request for a certificate). The petition of appeal in
this matter was filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3, which consists of completely different
regulatory provisions than N.J.A.C. 6A:4; these two Administrative Code Sections should never
be conflated. Nimczyk, at 2. The appropriate standard of review of the Board’s decision in this
case is whether the decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

3
Upon review of the record and application of the appropriate standard of review, the
Commissioner finds that the Board’s decision was consistent with the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3 sets forth the requirements for obtaining a CE in
instructional areas, which include achievement of “a cumulative GPA of at least 3.00 when a GPA
of 4.00 equals an A grade for candidates graduating on or after September 1, 2016 . . . .” N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-8.3(a)(3). 	Here, it is undisputed that petitioner graduated from a bachelor’s degree
program in 2024 with a cumulative GPA of 2.97. Thus, he has not satisfied the cumulative GPA
requirement. Moreover, the exceptions to the cumulative GPA requirement found at N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-8.3(b) are not applicable because petitioner did not exceed the passing score on the Praxis
subject matter test by 10 percent or more, and he does not claim to be sponsored by a CE
educator preparation program. Finally, the regulations prohibit the Board from either waiving a
GPA requirement or substituting education and/or experience for a GPA requirement. N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.12(c).
Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified with respect to the appropriate standard of
review, is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of appeal is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 10, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 10, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02386-26
AGENCY DKT NO. 003-01-26
CHRISTIAN CARRASCO,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF
EXAMINDERS,
Respondent.
Christian Carrasco, petitioner, pro se
Kevin Milton, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Jennifer Davenport,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: April 9, 2026 	Decided: April 24, 2026
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christian Carrasco, applied for a Teacher of Physical Education Certificate and
was denied because he did not meet the requirement of a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02386-26
2
higher and did not qualify for any of the exceptions to that requirement. 	Must the New
Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners (respondent) issue the
certificate? 	No. 	A teaching certificate can only be issued if the applicant meets the
requirements enumerated or qualifies for an exception and the respondent cannot waive
those requirements. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(c)(1).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 	2, 2025, Carrasco 	filed an application for a Teacher of Physical
Education Certificate of Eligibility. 	On May 20, 2025, the Office of Recruitment,
Preparation and Certification denied his application. 	On August 5, Carrasco filed an
appeal with the respondent. On September 19, 2025, the respondent met and reviewed
Carrasco’s 	application, 	denial 	and 	request 	for 	appeal. 	On 	October 	30, 	2025,
respondent denied his appeal because he did not meet the requirements under N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-8.3 (a) and he did not qualify for any of the exceptions under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
8.3(b). 	Specifically, Carrasco did not have a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher and did
not exceed the passing score by ten percent on the state test on the subject matter.
On January 7, 2026, Carrasco filed a timely appeal. 	On February 5 2026,
respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer because Carrasco did not
meet the requirements for a Certificate of Eligibility. 	On February 10, 2026 , the case
was transmitted from the Department of Education to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to-15 and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to-13, for a hearing as a contested case under the Uniform Administrative
Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1to 21.6 and N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to-15 and N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to-13. On March 6, 2026, I held a status conference and directed Carrasco to
file a response to the motion by April 6, 2026, allowing Carrasco who is appearing pro
se sufficient time to file a response given the pending holidays. 	Respondent had no
objections to the enlarged time for Carrasco to file his response. 	On April 6, 2026,
Carrasco failed to file any response. 	An email was sent to Carrasco requesting a
response to the motion by the close of business on April 9, 2026, and no papers were
filed. On April 9, 2026, I closed the record.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02386-26
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted, and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
In August 2024, Christian Carrasco graduated from Montclair State University
with a Bachelor of Science in Physical Education. 	(Cert. of Milton, Ex. A.) 	His
cumulative GPA was 2.97. 	Carrasco completed the Praxis II 5091 Physical Education
with a score of 151. Praxis II 5091 Physical Education passing score is 148. A score of
ten percent more than the passing score is 163. 	There are no limitations on how many
times the Praxis II can be taken.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The central issue is whether the respondent’s motion to dismiss should be
granted or whether Carrasco is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to show that the
respondent 	acted 	arbitrarily, 	capriciously 	or 	unreasonably 	and 	his 	application 	for
employment should be considered by respondent.
Summary decision “may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have
been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter
of law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	This rule is substantially like the summary judgment rule
embodied in the N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. 	See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co.
of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). All inferences of doubt are drawn against the party
filing the motion and in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. Id. at 75.
The judge’s function is to determine whether there are genuine issues of fact to be
adjudicated. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Having read the briefs and certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, I
CONCLUDE that no issues of material fact exist and that the case is ripe for summary
decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02386-26
4
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its
decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless
there is an affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational
basis or induced by improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J.
Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). 	Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions,
action 	is 	not 	arbitrary 	or 	capricious 	when 	exercised 	honestly 	and 	upon 	due
consideration,” and the commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the
board. 	Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch.
Div. 1973).
A candidate must have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or
university, with a cumulative GPA of 3.00 when a GPA of 4.00 equals an A grade, to
meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5, and the candidate must have a passing
score of the appropriate state test of subject matter knowledge. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a).
If a candidate does not have a 3.00 GPA, but equal to or higher than 2.75 GPA,
the candidate can be exempted from this requirement if, on the state test of the subject
matter, the candidate exceeds the passing score by ten percent. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(b).
A candidate can appeal their denial to the Board of Examiners. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.12. 	The candidate can request to substitute alternate education and/or experience in
areas of deficiency. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). The Board of Examiners cannot waive the
GPA requirement. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(c)(1). 	The Board cannot substitute education
for the GPA requirement. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(c)(2).
Here, Carrasco does not have a 3.00 GPA but does have a GPA higher than
2.75. 	To qualify for a waiver, Carrasco must score 163 on the Praxis II 5091. 	He
scored 148. 	His GPA and Praxis scores do not fall within any exception. 	Respondent
must comply with the regulations. Respondent cannot waive the GPA requirement, nor
is there any additional substitute for the test score. 	There are no limitations to the
number of times an applicant can retake the Praxis II 5091. 	If Carrasco retakes the
examination, and scores 163 or higher, he will qualify for the exemption to the GPA
requirement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02386-26
5
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the respondent’s decision to deny
Carrasco’s Teacher of Physical Education Certificate was required by the regulation,
was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and the appeal must be DISMISSED.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer is GRANTED,
and the petition is DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and
unless such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become
a final decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 	Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other
parties.
April 24, 2026
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 24, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 24, 2026

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02386-26
6
APPENDIX
Moving papers for petitioner:
None
Moving papers for respondent:
Motion to Dismiss In Lieu of an Answer dated February 5, 2026
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
R-A 	Decision from State Board of Examiners dated October 30, 2025