AI的回答：
根据澳大利亚移民法规定，担保人一生最多只能担保两位配偶，包括未婚夫妻、已婚配偶或事实婚姻伴侣（同居关系）146。如果已经担保过两位配偶，通常情况下无法再担保第三位配偶，除非符合豁免条件。
在以下特殊情况下，移民局可能允许担保人担保超过两位配偶：
此外，即使符合豁免条件，申请也需提供强有力的理由和相关证明，且成功获批的可能性较低8.
建议在复杂情况下咨询专业移民律师，以评估是否符合豁免条件并获取最佳解决方案。
志杰律师的回答： 首先要考虑担保原来两个配偶的时间，这个配偶的担保人数限制是从1996年11月1日才出现的，所以在这之前担保的配偶人数都不计算。
如果超过了2个的担保上限，移民局的政策规定以下特殊情况是可以考虑，再批准一个担保配额的：
7.2 Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of the sponsor
Under policy, compelling circumstances affecting the interests of the sponsor include instances where:
- the applicant and their sponsor have a dependent child who is dependent on each of them （双方有小孩） or
- the death of the previous partner （前配偶去世了） or
- the previous spouse abandoning the sponsor and there are children dependent on the sponsor requiring care and support （和前配偶有小孩）or
- the new relationship is longstanding （和现配偶有长期的关系）.
These examples are not exhaustive. The purpose of the sponsorship limitation is to prevent abuse of the partner/fiancé migration provisions and this should be kept in mind when deciding whether to exercise the waiver.
Every aspect of the sponsor’s circumstances is relevant to the existence of compelling circumstances. Although no definitive list can be given, some general aspects that may be particularly important are:
主要考量的点是：
- the nature of the hardship/detriment that would be suffered (by the sponsor) if the sponsorship were not approved. 担保人遭受的困难处境
- the extent and importance of the ties the sponsor has to Australia, and the consequent hardship/detriment that would be suffered if the sponsorship were not approved and the sponsor were to feel compelled to leave Australia to maintain their relationship with the applicant. 担保人和澳洲的联系，如果担保人必须要离开澳洲会遭受的困难处境。
Example
There have recently been a number of claims relating to so called ‘innocent sponsors’. These sponsors claim that their intentions towards the original relationship were genuine, that they were blameless in the failure of the relationship and that because of this, the waiver should be exercised. In some of these cases, the person they sponsored/nominated has left Australia and no immigration advantage was gained. The sponsors claim that they would be unreasonably disadvantaged if the waiver was not exercised as their new relationship is clearly genuine.
It is open to decision makers to decide whether this situation would meet the criteria of compelling circumstances. However, this would depend on the individual circumstances of each case such as whether it is possible to establish the bona fides of the original relationship or whether the first sponsorship was ‘careless’ (sponsored with the expectation that if things didn’t work out, they would be free to try again). Although the first relationship may not necessarily be bogus, this scenario may still represent a misuse of the migration provisions.