from the City of Grand Rapids. During the time period at issue in this adversary proceeding, the Debtor completed MARVIN certifications for 102 benefit weeks. Each time he contacted MARVIN, he was asked if he was working, and if so, how much income he had received during the relevant time period. Each time, the Debtor reported he was not working and had received no wages, despite the fact that he was working and earning income from the City of Grand Rapids throughout this time period. 2. Justifiable Reliance. To prevail on its § 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action, the Agency must also establish that it relied on the certifications made by the Debtor through the MARVIN system and that its reliance was justified. See Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 74-75, 116 S.Ct. 437, 446, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (<HOLDING>); First Horizon Home Loan Corp. v. Apostle (In
holding that  523a2a requires justifiable but not reasonable reliance holding standard under section 523a2a is justifiable reliance holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that a creditors reliance under  523a2a need only be subjectively justified and not objectively reasonable