for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion to terminate proceedings, and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo questions of law and claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petitions for review. The IJ did not violate due process in denying the motion to terminate because petitioners were properly served with their Notices to Appear, appeared at their hearings, and failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The agency did not abuse its discretion in
holding that the secretary is not entitled to deference when construing the acts implementing regulations holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue holding that neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history suggests that appointment is permissible only in some limited set of circumstances holding that neither the ina nor its implementing regulations require that the ins provide those notices in any language other than english holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it