Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers arrested a 32-year-old Somalia-born permanent resident in Melbourne on 2 February after alleged breaches of strict monitoring conditions attached to his Commonwealth visa. According to the AFP statement, the man left his registered address during mandated curfew hours on three occasions between 15 and 21 January and allowed his ankle-monitoring device to malfunction seven times. He faces ten charges under sections 76C and 76D of the Migration Act 1958, each carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or a A$99,000 fine.
The case is the first high-profile prosecution since monitoring orders were tightened in December 2025, following the High Court decision that limited the government’s power to detain unlawful non-citizens indefinitely. More than 60 former detainees are now subject to curfews and electronic bracelets; Home Affairs has warned that non-compliance will shift from administrative to criminal enforcement.
Companies looking for support in navigating these tightened compliance rules can streamline documentation and receive up-to-date guidance through VisaHQ, which specialises in Australian visa processing and status management. Its online platform (https://www.visahq.com/australia/) allows mobility coordinators to track application stages, set automated alerts for condition changes and access experts who can advise on curfew reporting obligations—helping to reduce the risk of costly oversights.
![AFP charges Somalia-born resident for multiple visa-condition breaches in Melbourne]()
For corporate mobility teams this signals a hardening stance on post-arrival obligations. Employers sponsoring workers or dependants who fall under special monitoring must keep meticulous records, notify Home Affairs of address changes within two business days and have escalation protocols if curfew alerts are triggered. Failure to do so can lead to sponsorship bars or civil penalties, jeopardising project timelines.
Legal advisers recommend updating onboarding checklists, arranging 24-hour contact points for monitored staff and ensuring privacy policies address the handling of electronic-tracking data. With criminal exposure now explicit, businesses can no longer treat visa-condition breaches as a purely personal matter for the employee.
The Melbourne case is expected to be heard in the Magistrates’ Court this week; observers say the outcome will set a benchmark for sentencing under the new regime.
The case is the first high-profile prosecution since monitoring orders were tightened in December 2025, following the High Court decision that limited the government’s power to detain unlawful non-citizens indefinitely. More than 60 former detainees are now subject to curfews and electronic bracelets; Home Affairs has warned that non-compliance will shift from administrative to criminal enforcement.
Companies looking for support in navigating these tightened compliance rules can streamline documentation and receive up-to-date guidance through VisaHQ, which specialises in Australian visa processing and status management. Its online platform (https://www.visahq.com/australia/) allows mobility coordinators to track application stages, set automated alerts for condition changes and access experts who can advise on curfew reporting obligations—helping to reduce the risk of costly oversights.
For corporate mobility teams this signals a hardening stance on post-arrival obligations. Employers sponsoring workers or dependants who fall under special monitoring must keep meticulous records, notify Home Affairs of address changes within two business days and have escalation protocols if curfew alerts are triggered. Failure to do so can lead to sponsorship bars or civil penalties, jeopardising project timelines.
Legal advisers recommend updating onboarding checklists, arranging 24-hour contact points for monitored staff and ensuring privacy policies address the handling of electronic-tracking data. With criminal exposure now explicit, businesses can no longer treat visa-condition breaches as a purely personal matter for the employee.
The Melbourne case is expected to be heard in the Magistrates’ Court this week; observers say the outcome will set a benchmark for sentencing under the new regime.
