In 2022, the Arizona legislature passed—and then-Governor Ducey signed into law—a landmark election integrity bill: HB 2492. Authored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the law bolsters safeguards to our election process by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, ensuring that only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections.
It’s commonsense legislation that is popular with the public and a blueprint for other states looking to adopt nearly identical bills. And why wouldn’t it be? U.S. citizens cannot go into France, Australia, or any other country throughout the world and vote in their elections, so why should citizens from other countries be allowed to vote in our elections?
Yet immediately after HB 2492 was passed, a consortium of liberal organizations and the Biden Justice department sued to stop the law from going into effect. Now, after multiple trips to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of which included a bizarre ruling that required an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to let Arizona enforce our proof of citizenship requirements for the 2024 election (which we won), the entire law will now be going to the nation’s highest court.
We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law in its entirety, but one issue about the litigation has been simmering beneath the surface: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes…
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, toldThe 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.
The federal government unlawfully denied Grand Canyon University (GCU) its nonprofit status, per a new federal court ruling.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Grand Canyon University v. Miguel Cardona that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) was wrong to refuse the Christian university their nonprofit status.
Circuit Judge Daniel Collins reversed the summary judgment by District Court Judge Susan Bolton favoring ED. Collins remanded GCU’s nonprofit status back to ED for review.
ED had determined that GCU’s organizing documents satisfied the IRS organizational test’s requirements; however, ED denied GCU when it came to the operational test. ED determined that GCU’s primary activities and its stream of revenue both didn’t benefit the university. Collins disagreed.
Collins ruled that ED had invoked the wrong legal standards, going beyond the Higher Education Act (HEA) requirements to impose exceeding IRS regulations. Rather, Collins ruled that HEA standards only require ED to determine whether GCU was owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation and whether GCU satisfied the no-inurement requirement.
“The Department invoked the wrong legal standards by relying on IRS regulations that impose requirements that go well beyond the HEA’s requirements and instead implement a portion of § 501(c)(3) that has no counterpart in the definition of the term ‘nonprofit’ set forth in HEA § 103(13),” ruled Collins.
The inurement requirement allows nonprofits to buy from for-profit companies at fair market value.
GCU has been battling with ED over its nonprofit status since 2019, when ED denied the IRS status granted to GCU. GCU had historically been a nonprofit school, save a stint in the early 2000s when the university went for-profit to avoid bankruptcy.
After GCU sued ED in 2021 over the denial, ED launched a coordinated investigation with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Veterans Affairs for unfair or deceptive practices.
Last year, ED levied a $38 million fine against GCU.
GCU maintained that ED targeted them over their ideological differences, since they are a Christian university.
Bob Romantic, GCU executive director of the office of communications and public relations, said in a press release that the nonprofit status would allow GCU to thrive more than it has been able to under a for-profit status.
“While the university remains exceedingly proud of what it achieved during its short stint as a for-profit institution, building up GCU from the brink of bankruptcy into the largest Christian university in the country, nonprofit status best allows the university to accomplish its goals around research, grant writing, development, being full members of the NCAA, etc.,” said Romantic. “Today’s decision is a long-awaited correction to the Department’s unlawful application of a standard that improperly denied GCU of its nonprofit status, and we are hopeful for a quick affirmation of the university as a nonprofit institution.”
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to dismantle ED “very early” in his administration in a campaign video last year, citing America’s high spending and poor student outcomes compared to other nations.
“[We’re] sending all education and education work and needs back to the states. We want them to run the education of our children, because they’ll do a much better job of it. You can’t do worse,” said Trump. “We’re going to end education coming out of Washington, D.C., we’re going to close it up, all those buildings all over the place, and yeah people that, in many cases, hate our children. We’re going to send it all back to the states.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Maricopa County agreed to pay a $175,000 settlement for denying press credentials to a reporter during last year’s election.
Approval of the settlement passed during the county board of supervisors’ meeting on Wednesday without discussion.
The county’s denial meant that the reporter, from the Gateway Pundit, couldn’t attend their press conferences. The county denied the press pass on the grounds that they didn’t believe the reporter was objective and apolitical enough for their tastes. In response, the outlet sued the county in TGP Communications v. Sellers.
In December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the county to issue the outlet a press pass while the litigation continued in December. The court further asserted that the county likely violated the First Amendment and discriminated against the outlet based on the reporter’s political views.
“Permitting ‘truth’ to be determined by the county violates our foundational notions of a free press,” stated the order.
When Maricopa County rolled out its press passes last September, Recorder Stephen Richer tweeted what appeared to be an agreement — and even celebration — of a statement that the county was going to prevent The Gateway Pundit from attending county press conferences and other events.
Later, around the time of the lawsuit’s filing, Richer deleted the tweet. Richer told AZ Free News that he didn’t have a specific reason for deleting the tweet, just that he occasionally deletes posts that he dislikes or deems to be unproductive in hindsight.
The county’s press pass application page remained active until around January 2023. It required the journalist’s contact information, address, dates of planned coverage, work samples, and a pledge that they didn’t have a conflict of interest or association involvement that would compromise their journalistic integrity.
It also required journalists to promise they didn’t receive compensation or special treatment from advertisers or political organizations that would influence their coverage, and that they weren’t a lobbyist, advertiser, paid advocate, or influencer for any individual, political party, corporation, or organization.
A month after initiating the press passes system, the county launched a disinformation center. They further declared a limit to press access on county property.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
