050 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 7, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We are without jurisdiction to review the agency’s grant of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. Although we retain jurisdiction, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), to review constitutional claims and questions of law, petitioner’s “talismanic invocation of the language of ‘due process’ ” alone is insufficient to create jurisdiction over his petition. Saloum v. USCIS, 437 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir.2006). Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to review the instant petition because petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. See Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 168-74 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to
holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the aliens did not appeal the ijs denial of their motion to reopen to the board resulting in failure to exhaust their administrative remedies holding that we had jurisdiction and granting aliens petition where the bia unlawfully relied on the nonviability of the aliens marriage in denying her application for adjustment of status holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel