These beloved Mexican restaurant chains have closed Arizona locations in 2025
Arizona has seen a slate of store and restaurant closures this year.
While the closure of stores like Joann and Macy's may have generated a lot of chatter, Arizona has also seen several major Mexican restaurant chains unexpectedly closing their doors, much to the dismay of customers.
Recently, eight Filiberto's stores scattered across metro Phoenix quietly closed. In addition to the closures of the 24-hour restaurants, Buqui Bichi and On the Border also closed stores around town.
Here's everything to know about the recent Mexican restaurant chains that have closed stores in Arizona, including which specific locations were impacted.
Eight locations of the popular Valley chain Filiberto's have quietly closed, some permanently, according to signs posted on the doors.
The 24-hour drive-through Mexican restaurant has more than 50 locations in metro Phoenix alone. Originally started by the Tenorio family, the chain has franchised its locations to many different owners.
The eight locations are all owned by the Compadres Group.
These are the eight locations that closed:
Phoenix: 2955 N. 91st Ave, 17224 N. 19th Ave.
Apache Junction: 10749 E. Apache Trail
Chandler: 930 E. Pecos Road
Gilbert: 1397 E. Williams Field Road
Peoria: 13972 N. 83rd Ave.
Scottsdale: 9150 E. Indian Bend Road
Avondale: 1440 N. Dysart Road
Buqui Bichi, an award-winning Mexican brewery, closed its last remaining Arizona taproom in downtown Phoenix in late May. It was the brewery's second ever location in the U.S.
In August 2023, they opened their first U.S. location in Chandler. In January 2024, they opened a second store in downtown Phoenix. The Chandler location closed in October 2024 and was replaced by Miel de Agave.
In a statement to The Republic, co-owner Martin Hurtado said: "Ultimately, we decided to close because the menu wasn't aligning with what our customers were looking for, many were expecting more traditional or recognizable Mexican offerings. Unfortunately, the franchise owners weren't open to adjusting the menu to better meet those local preferences, so we felt it was best to step away."
On the Border Mexican Grill and Cantina closed all of its Arizona locations in February.
The restaurant had three locations in the Valley: Mesa at 1710 S. Power Road, Peoria at 7873 W. Bell Road and Ahwatukee at 5005 E. Ray Road.
All three locations show as permanently closed on the restaurant's social media pages.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: These beloved Mexican restaurant chains closed Arizona stores in 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Millions around the world rely on money sent by family members working in the U.S. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would deal them a financial blow.
Poor countries around the world are still dealing with the impact of America's foreign aid programs being essentially shut down in the early days of President Trump's second term. Now Republicans in Congress are poised to deal a smaller yet still significant blow to another crucial financial lifeline: Money they receive from loved ones working in the U.S. Money transfers from the U.S., often sent by immigrants who came here specifically to earn cash they can use to support the people they left back home, are a vital source of income for people in developing countries around the world. Cumulatively, U.S. residents sent more than $79 billion abroad in 2022, the most recent year with available data. That's more than the federal government spent on direct foreign assistance the same year and double the amount that was sent from any other country. The GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' includes a provision that would impose a new tax on these transfers, which are formally known as remittances. As it's currently written, the bill would place a 3.5% tax on all outbound remittances. If that rate holds, it would mean billions of dollars intended for the poorest people across the globe would instead go to the government. The bill is still being negotiated, however, and some Republicans in Congress would like to see the rate cranked up substantially. Even if the rate does not change, the bill would still make the U.S. one of the world's most expensive wealthy countries to send money from, when you combine the new tax with the fees that banks typically charge for international transfers. Most of the money that leaves the U.S. goes to countries with the most immigrants living here. Mexico received $52 billion in remittances in 2021, equivalent to about 4% of the country's gross domestic product. India was a distant second with $15.8 billion. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum denounced the proposal last month, calling it 'an injustice' and a 'tax on those who have the least.' While Mexico would lose the most in terms of sheer dollars, the impact would be felt most acutely in poorer nations with small economies that are heavily dependent on money from overseas. Remittances account for more than a quarter of the GDPs of Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador. Some of the poorest countries in Africa would also be significantly affected. The amount of money the new tax would generate would be a drop in the bucket in the government's budget. Proponents of the proposal say its value would be much more than the revenue it would generate. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the anti-immigration think tank Center for Immigration Studies, told the Associated Press that the extra costs would help reduce the incentives that people have to travel to the U.S. illegally. 'One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,' he said. 'If that's much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.' Critics of the plan say that, while the most severe harm would fall on vulnerable people who are already reeling from the Trump administration's aid cuts, Americans would also suffer negative consequences. 'The tax is likely to create collateral damage by imposing compliance burdens on people who are not the intended target of the tax while struggling to collect revenue from the intended targets,' Alan Cole and Patrick Dunn of the Tax Foundation wrote earlier this month. Some financial services groups also oppose the tax because they believe it will create unnecessary and harmful hurdles for international business. 'This remittance tax provision in particular mandates a massive invasion of privacy by private businesses and the federal government on American citizens, creates undue tax burden for law-abiding Americans, reduces business revenue, complicates regulatory efforts, and hinders law enforcement,' the heads of seven lobbying groups for the finance sector wrote in a joint statement. The 'big, beautiful bill' passed the House last month and is currently being negotiated in the Senate. The remittance tax is a relatively minor part of the massive tax and spending plan, but there are some indications that it could be the source of disagreement within the GOP caucus. Insider reports say that some key senators are 'weighing concerns' about the tax, but it also has some strong backers. The most fervent supporters of the plan are in the House, which will have to approve whatever bill comes out of the Senate before it can become law. Several far-right GOP representatives — including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Chip Roy — reacted to Sheinbaum's criticisms by calling for the rate of the tax to be dramatically increased. Rep. Eric Schmitt wrote on social media that he would introduce a proposal to increase the rate to 15%. 'America is not the world's piggy bank,' he wrote. 'And we don't take kindly to threats.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Millions around the world rely on money sent by family members working in the U.S. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would deal them a financial blow.
Poor countries around the world are still dealing with the impact of America's foreign aid programs being essentially shut down in the early days of President Trump's second term. Now Republicans in Congress are poised to deal a smaller yet still significant blow to another crucial financial lifeline: Money they receive from loved ones working in the U.S. Money transfers from the U.S., often sent by immigrants who came here specifically to earn cash they can use to support the people they left back home, are a vital source of income for people in developing countries around the world. Cumulatively, U.S. residents sent more than $79 billion abroad in 2022, the most recent year with available data. That's more than the federal government spent on direct foreign assistance the same year and double the amount that was sent from any other country. The GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' includes a provision that would impose a new tax on these transfers, which are formally known as remittances. As it's currently written, the bill would place a 3.5% tax on all outbound remittances. If that rate holds, it would mean billions of dollars intended for the poorest people across the globe would instead go to the government. The bill is still being negotiated, however, and some Republicans in Congress would like to see the rate cranked up substantially. Even if the rate does not change, the bill would still make the U.S. one of the world's most expensive wealthy countries to send money from, when you combine the new tax with the fees that banks typically charge for international transfers. Most of the money that leaves the U.S. goes to countries with the most immigrants living here. Mexico received $52 billion in remittances in 2021, equivalent to about 4% of the country's gross domestic product. India was a distant second with $15.8 billion. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum denounced the proposal last month, calling it 'an injustice' and a 'tax on those who have the least.' While Mexico would lose the most in terms of sheer dollars, the impact would be felt most acutely in poorer nations with small economies that are heavily dependent on money from overseas. Remittances account for more than a quarter of the GDPs of Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador. Some of the poorest countries in Africa would also be significantly affected. The amount of money the new tax would generate would be a drop in the bucket in the government's budget. Proponents of the proposal say its value would be much more than the revenue it would generate. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the anti-immigration think tank Center for Immigration Studies, told the Associated Press that the extra costs would help reduce the incentives that people have to travel to the U.S. illegally. 'One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,' he said. 'If that's much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.' Critics of the plan say that, while the most severe harm would fall on vulnerable people who are already reeling from the Trump administration's aid cuts, Americans would also suffer negative consequences. 'The tax is likely to create collateral damage by imposing compliance burdens on people who are not the intended target of the tax while struggling to collect revenue from the intended targets,' Alan Cole and Patrick Dunn of the Tax Foundation wrote earlier this month. Some financial services groups also oppose the tax because they believe it will create unnecessary and harmful hurdles for international business. 'This remittance tax provision in particular mandates a massive invasion of privacy by private businesses and the federal government on American citizens, creates undue tax burden for law-abiding Americans, reduces business revenue, complicates regulatory efforts, and hinders law enforcement,' the heads of seven lobbying groups for the finance sector wrote in a joint statement. The 'big, beautiful bill' passed the House last month and is currently being negotiated in the Senate. The remittance tax is a relatively minor part of the massive tax and spending plan, but there are some indications that it could be the source of disagreement within the GOP caucus. Insider reports say that some key senators are 'weighing concerns' about the tax, but it also has some strong backers. The most fervent supporters of the plan are in the House, which will have to approve whatever bill comes out of the Senate before it can become law. Several far-right GOP representatives — including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Chip Roy — reacted to Sheinbaum's criticisms by calling for the rate of the tax to be dramatically increased. Rep. Eric Schmitt wrote on social media that he would introduce a proposal to increase the rate to 15%. 'America is not the world's piggy bank,' he wrote. 'And we don't take kindly to threats.'
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Where the Money Goes: Map, Charts Show Migrant Remittance Payments
A provision in President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" making its way through the United States Congress would place additional taxes on money immigrants want to send back to their home countries. In 2023, the last full year of data available, over $650 billion was received in remittances by countries worldwide. Roughly a third of that comes from the U.S., with countries with high levels of immigration to American benefitting most from the payments. Republicans in Congress want to recoup some of the money migrant workers in America are sending home, arguing the money should remain circulating within the U.S. economy. Those opposing the move, and some who have studied remittances for years, argue that a remittance tax could drive up immigration to the U.S. rather than hinder it. "Undocumented migrants play a huge role in the U.S. economy, not only as they participate in the labor force, and part of this is that they do send money back home, but a large number of them actually do pay taxes," Rubi Bledsoe, a research associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told Newsweek. "They also participate in supporting social programs that Americans get access to, without necessarily being able to access them themselves." Bledsoe argued that if remittances aren't being sent back to family and friends, or if the funds are reduced, then those who depend on them may look to come to the U.S. for work as well. Remittances from the U.S. to Mexico in 2023 were around $63.3 billion, or about 3.5 percent of Mexico's total GDP. Most of that money makes it way to some of the poorest regions of Mexico, Bledsoe said, which research from the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI) think tank supports. "For families in low- to middle-income countries who receive remittances from the United States, for instance, remittances are a lifeline that allows people to pay for utilities, services, and everyday expenses that they would otherwise not be able to afford," Ariel G Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst at MPI, told Newsweek. "Remittances can also be turned into investments that benefit not just individual families but also communities through shared projects, like building hospitals, schools, or buying necessary supplies to improve infrastructure." Among the biggest recipients of all global remittances in 2023 were India ($120 billion), Mexico ($66.2 billion), the Philippines ($39 billion), France ($36.9 billion), China ($29.1 billion), and Pakistan ($26.5 billion), according to the World Bank. The data from the World Bank covers worldwide payments, meaning not all that money came from the U.S. — though in cases like Mexico, remittances from the U.S. make up the vast bulk of the total. Americans living overseas who send back money home also count in the data. The U.S. received around $7.7 billion in remittances in 2023. CSIS estimates Mexican workers are sending $300 a month back home in remittances, on average, meaning most of their paycheck is still being spent within the U.S. That means their money is going towards housing, goods and services in their communities, and often state and federal taxes. There has been a steady rise in the amount of money heading to certain countries in recent years, as migration levels and access to jobs in the U.S. have increased. This has caused concern among some on the right who want to see stricter regulations on remittances. "It is kind of a double-edged sword," Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) told Newsweek. FAIR advocates for a more restrictionist immigration policy. "Yes, it does send money back to people in the home countries, but it also becomes a dependency. If you're going to be sending your best workers out of the country to work in another country and then wait for the money to come back, it impedes the development that needs to happen in those countries." Mehlman said FAIR also has concerns that payments are making their way back to cartels and other organized crime groups, while American companies are getting away with employing those without legal status, enabling a cheaper workforce that is detrimental to U.S. citizens as well as immigrants with work authorization. While there is widespread agreement that stopping payments to criminal organizations is necessary, both Bledsoe and Ruiz Soto cautioned against introducing tougher rules on remittance payments. They say this could have an adverse effect on illegal immigration, predicting that, should remittances be cut off from low- and medium-income countries, then more people may look to make the journey to the U.S. "Because the migrant is already here, sending money back, it means that the family of that migrant isn't in the United States," Bledose said. "So it is preventing migration on some level." Ruiz Soto added that "by filling the void of government investment and development, remittances reduce the economic pressures for many people to emigrate irregularly over the long term." Mehlman said Congress could act to introduce stricter measures, as it is looking to do with the tax on remittances, while Ruiz Soto said more security measures to track the funds being sent abroad could be introduced in an attempt to root out abuse. Related Articles Migrants From Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela Told To Self-DeportLA Taco Chain Closes 15 Locations Amid ICE CrackdownWorld Cup Boat Party Canceled After DHS, Coast Guard OperationNew Jersey ICE Escapees: What We Know 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
