The AAT affirmed the decision not to release the bank guarantee.

1. In February 2024, the Applicant applied for further AAT review (second review). He provided additional material concerning test and imaging results of an enlarged prostate and raised PSA level as well as urinary issues.
2. On 14 October 2024, the AAT was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). AAT applications for review not finalised before that date transitioned to the ART to be considered and finalised in a manner the ART considered efficient and fair: clause 24, Schedule 16 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024. As far as possible, such applications were to be continued under the ART legislation.

1. I conducted a telephone hearing on 27 August 2025. The Applicant was assisted by a Vietnamese interpreter. His case is that a combination of health-related and other problems amounts to special circumstances which should justify the release to him of the $14,000 bank guarantee.
2. The relevant legislative provisions in this matter are found in Chapter 2C of the Social Security Act 1991 (Act) and the Social Security (Assurances of Support) Determination 2018 (Determination) made under section 1061ZZGH of the Act. The provisions of the Determination applicable here have been in relevantly identical terms in previous versions of section 1061ZZGH determinations since at least 2008. Chapter 2C of the Act deals with assurances of support, including application requirements, security requirements and acceptance and rejection of assurance of support applications. Once accepted, an assurance of support cannot be withdrawn: section 1061ZZGEA of the Act.
3. There is no dispute in this case that the assurance of support given by the Applicant in 2015 continues in force until 30 September 2026, 10 years after the persons covered by the assurance arrived in Australia. Section 25 of the Determination deals with cancellation of an assurance of support prior to its expiry:

25 Circumstances in which assurances of support cease to be in force

For subparagraph 1061ZZGF(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, the following circumstances are

(a) after arrival in Australia, a person identified in an assurance of support, other

than a Community Support Programme entrant, is granted refugee status by the

(b) the visa of a person identified in an assurance of support is cancelled;

(c) a person is the only person identified in an assurance of support and the person dies;

(d) the following special circumstances that, in the opinion of the Secretary, justify

(i) an accident, disability, illness or other circumstance that has critically

affected the assurer's ability to provide adequate support;

(ii) the incapacity of a person identified in an assurance of support to travel

Note: Financial hardship on the part of an assurer is not, of itself, a special circumstance.

The Applicant's case is one under subparagraph 25(d)(i) of the Determination. Understandably, his focus has been on demonstrating that a combination of his particular circumstances amounts to special circumstances in this context. However, the terms of subparagraph 25(d)(i) make it clear that the "special circumstances" scope is limited to specified matters of accident, disability, illness or other circumstance that has "critically affected" the Applicant's ability to provide adequate support. So, evidence of accident, disability, illness or the like, without more, will not be sufficient.

1. I accept that the Applicant has experienced a range of financial, relationship and health-related difficulties since he gave the assurance of support and provided the $14,000 bank guarantee:
   • His marriage has broken down and he is now divorced. He has no contact with his ex-wife or daughter. Indeed, he does not know where they are, nor does he know the whereabouts of her parents. There were legal costs and considerable stress and anxiety involved in family law process.
   • The Applicant entered voluntary bankruptcy in May 2022, after he had been told by a Centrelink staff member this could assist his claim for release of the bank guarantee funds. He was discharged from bankruptcy in May of this year. He still has a significant debt to the Australian Tax Office; there is no evidence he is making voluntary payments on this debt or that he is being actively pursued for repayment.
   • The Applicant has very significant dental problems, treatment for which will involve considerable expense which he cannot afford. Serious infection has been a concern. He gave evidence that a work colleague had experienced a similar infection, and she ended up in intensive care for a period. He feared a similar fate. As a temporary measure, he has had the affected teeth removed to counter the risk of infection. The only way he might be able to have the recommended dental work undertaken would require him to borrow funds from his sister in Vietnam.
   • The Applicant is concerned he may have prostate cancer; tests and imaging indicate this possibility should be further investigated. He is awaiting a biopsy but there is no set date as of yet. He also has a urinary tract blockage which prevents him from being able to fully empty his bladder. He has decided to await the prostate biopsy before getting this blockage treated. At hearing, he referred to material he provided on 19 August 2025 as demonstrating the seriousness of this condition. Most of this material appeared to be medical reports in Vietnamese. The Applicant referred to some English content. At the foot of one page, there is a warning in English advising "Patients may have acute urinary retention at any time" and to go to Emergency for treatment if this occurred. This advice was general in nature and did not specifically refer to the Applicant's particular circumstances.
2. At the time he gave the assurance of support in 2015, the Applicant's taxable income was $62,000. He continues to work for the same employer. His 2024 gross annual income was just above $89,000. At hearing, he confirmed he continues to work full-time. He said he has been "sacrificing" his Saturdays to work more than normal full-time hours. So, it seems likely his current income will have increased as a result. There is no evidence to suggest that his income-earning capacity has been adversely affected by his health issues. It is likely his overall financial circumstances have improved after his discharge from bankruptcy in May this year.
3. At hearing, the Applicant suggested, in hindsight, he thinks he may have been scammed by his ex-wife and her parents. That is not a matter I need to determine. It goes to explain his wish to no longer provide support or assistance; it does not address his ability to provide support, if required.

1. The real difficulty for the Applicant in this case is that, whilst he has experienced several significant problems of different kinds, there is no evidence that his ability to provide support under the assurance of support has been critically affected as a consequence. In my view, it is not open to find special circumstances which justify cancellation of the assurance of support within subparagraph 25(d)(i) of the Determination. It follows that the bank guarantee funds cannot be released to the Applicant.