
    Ramon O’Neil WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Ramon Williams, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-4639-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 12, 2011.
    
      Ramon O’Neil Williams, pro se, Batavia, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney (Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Ramon O’Neil Williams, a citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of an October 7, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the May 6, 2009 decision of immigration judge (“IJ”) Alan Vomacka finding Williams inadmissible as an alien who “the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe” engaged in illicit drug trafficking, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)® (2006), and, therefore, ineligible for adjustment of status, see id. § 1255(a); Matter of Williams, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 6, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s conclusion and emphasizes particular aspects of the IJ’s decision, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s opinions. See Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). Although we lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006); Ruiz v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 269, 275 n. 4 (2d Cir.2009), we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006), including whether an alien is eligible for adjustment of status, see Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650 F.3d 189, 193-94 (2d Cir.2011). “Because the question of eligibility for adjustment of status is one of law, our standard of review is de novo.” Id. (citing Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir.2010)).

Williams has abandoned his challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that he is inadmissible on the ground that there was reason to believe that he engaged in illicit drug trafficking by failing to raise it in his brief to this court. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005); see also Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998).

Even if this claim were preserved, however, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the “reason to believe” standard was satisfied here. As an initial matter, the fact that Williams was never convicted of a drug trafficking crime does not preclude a determination that there was “reason to believe” that he was a trafficker. Matter of Favela, 16 I. & N. Dec. 753, 756 (B.I.A.1979); see also Correa v. Thornburgh, 901 F.2d 1166, 1169, 1173 (2d Cir.1990). There is no dispute that, in July 2008, Williams was arrested after a van in which he was riding was pulled over by a narcotics detective and a search revealed approximately sixty to seventy pounds of marijuana in the vehicle, an amount inconsistent with personal use. Although Williams argued to the IJ that he was unaware that the marijuana was in the van, the arresting officer’s sworn statement indicated that there was a noticeable odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, and that the drugs were packaged in duffle bags that the officer had earlier observed Williams helping to load into the van. Further, the night before he was arrested, Williams stayed at a location from which the police subsequently recovered an additional package containing four ounces of marijuana, two digital scales containing marijuana residue, two rolls of packaging material (identical in appearance to that in which the marijuana in the van was wrapped), ammunition, and $3,450 in cash from a safe. Based on this evidence, the BIA reasonably concluded that there was reason to believe that Williams had engaged in illicit drug trafficking.

We have considered Williams’s remaining arguments for consideration based on his marriage to a United States citizen, his good family background, and purported changes in the exercise of the executive’s deportation discretion, and we conclude that they fall outside the scope of our review discretion or are without merit in light of the inadmissibility determination. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the court previously granted in this petition is VACATED and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  