Illegal Immigrant Restaurateur Deportation Case Raises Questions Among Republican Grassroots

by Matthew Holloway | Aug 17, 2025 | News

By Matthew Holloway |

The case of a Chinese illegal-immigrant-turned-Peoria restaurateur, Lai Kuen “Kelly” Yu, is raising questions among the Republican Party grassroots.

Yu was arrested on May 28th by ICE agents, and her pending deportation back to China has caused what many see as an inexplicable alignment of Democrat politicians, one Republican leader, and the avowedly anti-Trump group ‘Northwest Valley Indivisible.’

Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, laid out plainly in a written statement to AZCentral that Yu, who was reportedly trafficked into the U.S. illegally in 2004, has exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the country. “Lai Kuen Yu, an illegal alien from Hong Kong, was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol in Arizona on February 4, 2004, and two days later was released into the country. She exhausted all her due process and appeals. She has no legal pathways to remain in the U.S.”

Lisa Everett, Republican chair of Legislative District 29, told The Center Square in an interview this week contrary to court records, “Kelly is a woman who came to the United States when she was 18 years old, 21 years old at the time. She was pregnant, fled China due to the one-child policy, and when she arrived, she immediately applied for asylum.”

“She sponsors the high school softball team. She helps with fundraisers for the fire and police department. She has no criminal record, and she does in fact pay her taxes, the business as well as her personal because there are forms you can use to do that,” claimed Everett. “She was scooped up by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while she was at an immigration meeting that she had to go to because she is married now, and she’s trying to use being married to an American to become a citizen.”

Everett has teamed up with Brent Peak, co-chair of radical leftist activist group Northwest Valley Indivisible, which has rallied with the socialist Working Families Party and aggressively targeted the GOP’s top priority ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, and his supporters.

As recently as April, Everett, her LD29 team, and supporters from Legislative District 28 were out counterprotesting against Indivisible’s anti-Trump demonstrations on an almost daily basis for nearly two weeks.

The stunning about-face has made significant waves among West Valley Republicans. One commenter on a post by the Maricopa County Republican Committee asked, “Why is she still in position of the Republican chair?”

Another commenter observed, “We’re seeing a growing problem of white progressive women rebranding themselves as ‘conservatives’ just long enough to slide onto Republican tickets. They talk a good game on vague GOP talking points, but when it comes to the hard issues — border security, law and order, the culture war — they fold right back into Democrat-lite positions. This is how the Uniparty works: infiltrate, dilute, and derail. If we don’t vet candidates for values instead of just labels, we’ll keep getting wolves in MAGA clothing.”

Alongside Everett and Brent, prominent Democrats, including Senators Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, and Congressman Greg Stanton, have also weighed in on the matter to support Yu. However, the story of Yu’s illegal entry into the U.S. is not entirely clear-cut, and many unanswered questions remain.

According to Yu’s husband, Aldo Urquiza, per AZ Central, she immigrated to the United States illegally via Mexico through a human smuggler. She was reportedly pregnant and fled China due to the CCP’s one-child policy. Initially, she sought legal asylum in the U.S. in 2004 and was released. According to U.S. Homeland Security Investigations, a federal immigration judge issued a removal order in 2005, as reported by Fox 10. This order went through various appeals until Yu was denied asylum by the Ninth Circuit Court in 2016. However, according to the August 2016 unanimous ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Yu’s request for asylum did not rest on China’s One Child Policy but rather her seeking protection “from her father,” and from “persecution based on discrimination against her as an unwed mother.”

The court found:

Lai Kuen Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if not barred from asylum based on firm resettlement, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Yu did not demonstrate that she suffered harm rising to the level of persecution in Hong Kong or China. See Nagoulko v. 1NS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive”).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determinations that Yu failed to demonstrate the government would be unwilling or unable to protect her from her father, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant bears the burden of establishing that abuse was committed by the government or an agent the government is unwilling or unable to control), and that Yu failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on discrimination against her as an unwed mother, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-17 (being “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” did not compel a finding of persecution); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as offensive as it may be”). Thus, Yu’s asylum claim fails.

Because Yu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

McLaughlin told The Center Square in an email, “On November 14, 2013, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal and upheld her final order of removal. On August 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied her appeal. On June 12, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her a temporary stay of removal while they consider her motion to reopen. She will remain in ICE custody pending her removal proceedings.”

While Yu is lauded by her supporters for her civic contributions to her community, critics question how her minor generosity absolves her of illegally overstaying in the U.S. for 21 years.

“Why are so many Democrats and even at least one Republican lining up to take up her case when Yu’s deportation was initiated under the Biden Administration after being adjudicated under the Obama Administration,” questioned one Republican activist.

Yu married her husband Aldo Urquiza in 2025, and according to Everett, is “trying to use being married to an American to become a citizen,” raising the question whether this attempt, if true, places Yu at risk of prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

According to a source on Capitol Hill, several members of Congress have inquired as to the status of the case and the implications suggest that, short of direct intervention from President Trump, Yu’s deportation order is likely to stand.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.