Not all lying in all circumstances is fraud, but the legal definition of fraud is essentially "intentionally lying to obtain a benefit at the expense of someone" in a bit more precise words, so at least this case of lying on her resume matches the definition of fraud.

The precise words are different for each jurisdiction, for example, the South Australia criminal law (https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/CRIMINAL%20LAW%20CO...) says "139—Deception; A person who deceives another and, by doing so— (a)dishonestly benefits him/herself or a third person; or (b) dishonestly causes a detriment to the person subjected to the deception or a third person, is guilty of an offence." - in essence, all lying to get a benefit or harm someone else; though they've chosen to label that particular crime 'deception' instead of 'fraud' as in many other places.

That maybe true, but I am assuming that you are looking at it from a non Australian position. (If not I apologize). It could be there are laws there that say it is fraudulent to obtain a public office position by overstating your qualifications.

No, but all fraud includes lying

Correct. This was what I was attempting to convey (but failed miserably) with the "!==" instead of "!=". Thus, one could be misleading by categorizing fraud as lying, which is exactly what's going on with this title.

It's especially egregious in this instances as most everyone lies, at least a little, on their resumes because often it's the only way to get pasted HR filter BS.