Nermin Messiha v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 4/16/2021, (#89-21)

89-21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Nermin Messiha,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent – the State Board of Examiners (SBE) – that
she had not met the requirements for issuance of a Teacher of Biological Services Certificate of Eligibility
(CE). The SBE denied petitioner’s application because she did not complete the Praxis II General Sciences:
Content Knowledge test, as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a)(4). Additionally, as her application for the
CE was not completed until after September 1, 2015, petitioner was also required to pass the basic skills
assessment in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a)(5), which she failed to do. The SBE filed a motion for
summary decision, which was opposed by petitioner.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no issues of material fact in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; 	petitioner did not complete the required Praxis II General Sciences test prior to her
application for the CE; and petitioner’s failure to understand that this test was required does not release her
from the obligation of passing the test to achieve certification. The ALJ concluded that petitioner has not
met the requirements for the CE she seeks. Accordingly, summary decision was granted in favor of the SBE,
and the petition was dismissed.
The Commissioner concurred with the findings and determination of the ALJ herein; additionally, the
Commissioner noted, inter alia, that petitioner failed to complete the required basic skills assessment
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a)(5). Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final
decision in this matter. The petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
April 16, 2021

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08616-20
Agency Dkt. No. 160-7/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Nermin Messiha,
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.1 The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon such review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) that the New Jersey State Board of Examiners did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable manner when it denied petitioner’s application for a Teacher of Biological Services
Certificate of Eligibility (CE). 	The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ that petitioner
did not meet the requirements for a CE because she failed to complete the Praxis II General
Sciences: Content Knowledge test, as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a)(4). Additionally, as her
application was not completed until after September 1, 2015, petitioner was also required to pass
the basic skills assessment in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a)(5), which she did not do.2
1 To the extent the Initial Decision indicates that respondent’s motion for summary decision was filed as
to “Count Two of the complaint,” the Commissioner notes that the motion for summary decision was
filed as to the entire petition.
2 Subsequent to petitioner’s application, she took the basic skills test on May 28, 2016, and passed the
reading portion. Petitioner has not passed the writing and math portions of the Praxis I.

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in
this matter, and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 16, 2021
Date of Mailing: 	April 16, 2021
3 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.

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08616-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 160/7 20
NERMIN MESSIAH.,
Petitioner,
v.
NJ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
________________________________
Nermin Messiah, pro se
David Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent, (Gurbir Grewald,
Attorney General of New Jersey)
Record Closed: March 3, 2021 	Decided: March 8, 2021
BEFORE: KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ:
This matter having been opened to the Court by respondent, David Kalisky,
Deputy Attorney General on a motion for summary decision which was received by the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on February 24, 2021. 	Petitioner filed opposition to
the motion on March 3, 2021.

2
By way of background, respondent alleges that petitioner did not comply with the
requirements for obtaining a teaching certificate. Petitioner alleges that she complied
with the requirements that were in effect at the time of her application.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law for adjudication of
the remaining counts, where it was filed as a contested matter on September 10, 2020.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Petitioner completed a web-based application with the Department of Teachers
Certification Information System (TCIS) and paid the online application fee on August
17, 2015, for a Certificate of Eligibility in Biological Science. 	Her application was
registered with TCIS and given a tracking number of 680838. Applicants who registered
with TCIS in August 2015 would have had access to the most up-to-date and publicly
available edition of “Appendix D” of the Department’s “Technical Manual,” which was
last updated in June of 2015. 	Petitioner states that she was not sent an email
attachment that included Appendix D of the Technical Manual. At that time Appendix D
of 	the 	Technical 	Manual 	was 	at 	the 	web 	address
www.state.nj.us/education/educators/license/1112.pdf.
Other requirements for obtaining a certificate of eligibility include submitting an
official college transcript, a notarized oath of allegiance with the requested information
filled out and taking the Praxis II in the subject assessment and specialty area test. 	If
the application was completed after September 1, 2015, the applicant must pass the
Praxis core academic skills for educators : Reading, Writing and Math, or score in the
top one third on the SAT, ACT or GRE for the year that the test was taken.
Respondent states they received petitioners’ transcripts on September 8, 2015.
Petitioner states that she provided her transcripts to the department on two prior
occasions. 	Petitioner admits that she did not submit a notarized authorization of
allegiance until September 3, 2015. 	She denies that it did not have the name of the
endorsement.

3
Respondent states that prior to September1, 2015, petitioner would have to pass
two Praxis II tests- Biology content knowledge and General Science content knowledge.
Petitioner passed the Praxis II Biology test. Petitioner states that she was not informed
that she had to take and pass the Praxis II general science test. Petitioner did not take
the Praxis II General Science test. Petitioner passed the Praxis II subject assessment
test prior to September 1, 2015.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Respondent seeks to summarily decision on Count Two of the complaint. 	The
rules governing motions for summary decision in an OAL matter are embodied N.J.A.C.
1:1-12.5. 	These provisions mirror the language of Rule 4:46-2 and the New Jersey
Supreme Court’s decision in Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Company of Westfield,
17 N.J. 67 (1954). 	Under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), the determination to grant summary
judgment should be based on the papers presented as well as any affidavits, which may
have been filed with the application. In order for the adverse, i.e., the non-moving party
to prevail in such an application, responding affidavits must be submitted showing that
there is indeed a genuine issue of fact, which can only be determined in an evidentiary
proceeding. 	The Court in Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 142
N.J. 520, 523 (1995), set the standard to be applied when deciding a motion for
summary judgment. Therein the Court stated:
The determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a
material fact challenged requires the Motion Judge to consider whether
the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party . . . are sufficient to permit a
rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
There is no genuine issue of material fact in this matter.
N.J.A.C. 6A: 9B-8.3(a) 4 provides:
(a) Except as indicated in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.8, 10, and 11, the candidate
shall meet the following criteria to be eligible for a CE in instructional

4
areas: 4. including, but not limited to, passing the appropriate State test(s)
of subject matter knowledge and completing the required subject-area
course requirements;
This 	regulation 	was 	last 	amended 	on 	May 	15, 	2006, 	nine 	years 	prior 	to
petitioner’s application.
Petitioner did complete the general science test before September 1, 2015.
Petitioner believed that she would receive appendix D of the Technical Manual by email,
but the manual was on the website. 	Petitioner not knowing that she had to take the
general science test does not change that fact that it was required for her to pass that
test to achieve the certification. 	Petitioner has not, as of now, taken the Praxis II
General Science test.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.3(b) provides:
The Board of Examiners shall issue the appropriate certificate upon the
candidate's completion of all certification requirements in effect at the time
the Office receives the application. Requirements include, but are not
limited to, coursework, degree, tests, fees, GPA, and all certificate rules
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8 through 13. An application shall be deemed
filed with the Office when it and all required supporting documentation has
been received.
In 	the 	Summer 	of 	2015, 	the 	required 	supporting 	documentation 	for 	a 	CE
application consisted of several items, including, but not limited to the following:(1) the
candidate’s online web application; (2) the candidate’s online application fee; (3) the
candidate’s completed and notarized Oath of Allegiance form; and (4) the candidate’s
official college transcripts. 	Petitioner admits that she did not provide the notarized oath
of allegiance prior to September 1, 2015.
I CONCLUDE petitioner did not complete the requirements for a Certificate of
Eligibility in Biological Science.
ORDER

5
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary
decision be and is hereby GRANTED. 	Petitioner did not comply with the requirements
for obtaining a teaching certificate therefore her motion must be DENIED.
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, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New
Jersey 08625-0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must
be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
March 8, 2021
DATE 	KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	March 8, 2021
Date Mailed to Parties: 	March 8, 2021
ljb

6
DOCUMENTS RELIED ON
- 	Respondent’s motion for summary decision and exhibits
- 	Petitioner’s opposition to motion for summary decision and exhibits